What are the Lessons of the Holocaust?

From the One Jerusalem Blog newsletter

Israel and the Jewish people have just commemorated the victims of the Holocaust. Sadly, this year's commemoration coincided with Iran's anti-Semitic President addressing a United Nations conference to condemn the State of Israel.

It is clear from the world's reaction to this conference that different people have learned different lessons from the Holocaust. Israel's new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaks for the majority of Jews and most civilized people when he says we must confront bestial hatred that drives people to kill innocent people. This mindset translates into taking seriously the threat to destroy Israel by Iran and its terrorist allies. Netanyahu has taken on the mantle of stopping the radical Islamic regime of Iran from carrying out its threat.

One would hope that the rest of the civilized world would follow Israel's lead. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The West has been uneven in its response to the saber rattling of Iran and Iran's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. There have been half hearted moves to impose sanctions but it is clear that there is not a strong commitment to make sanctions work. German companies still operate full-scale businesses in Iran. And Russia continues to sell Iran military equipment that help Iran fulfill its plans for nuclear weapons.

Even the decision by the British government to attend the Israel hate fest called Durban II shows the failure of many in the West to deal effectively with the Iranian threat. Instead there is a growing consensus that Iran should be treated as a responsible citizen of the international community. After all, no one objected to the United Nations decision to provide Achdeminjad with a platform from which he could attack the civilized world. Yes, some Western countries walked out of Druban when the Iranian President started into his hate-filled rant. But why were they there to begin with? Only Canada showed moral clarity when it dismissed Durban II, even before Achdeminjad said he would attend. Remember, the United States tried to participate but in the end made the right decision to stay away.

Besides Canada and Israel have any other governments learned any valuable lessons from the Holocaust? The inability of the international community to stop the carnage in Darfur suggests the answer is NO. The international communities failure to stop or even criticize the oppression of the Iranian people by its dictatorial rulers suggests the answer is NO. Unfortunately, this list can be extended.

The few nations who understand that Iran must be confronted and forced to abandon its evil ways are the Winston Churchill's of our age. A Churchill's biographer titled the volume covering the years when Churchill was a rare voice in favor of challenging Hitler "The Wilderness Years". Churchill was in the wilderness because the world believed it could appease Hitler and avoid confronting him. They learned the hard way that appeasement only allows the enemies of humanity to get stronger.

While the nations of the world have not digested the lessons they should have from the Holcaust what about America's President?

Recently President Obama spoke at a Holocaust event and his words should be studied. The first to do so is a friend of One Jerusalem, Michael Ledeen. Ledeen urges everyone to read the speech and to contemplate its messages.

Ledeen excerpts significant sections of the speech and offers his commentary. Ledeen writes:

He then gave his version of "never again," and it's a very odd version indeed. First, he draws hope from the survivors of the Holocaust. Those who came to America had a higher birthrate than the Jews who were already living here, and those members of "a chosen people" who created Israel. These, he says, chose life and asserted it despite the horrors they had endured. And then he goes on:

We find cause for hope as well in Protestant and Catholic children attending school together in Northern Ireland; in Hutus and Tutsis living side-by-side, forgiving neighbors who have done the unforgivable; in a movement to save Darfur that has thousands of high school and college chapters in 25 countries and brought 70,000 people to the Washington Mall, people of every age and faith and background and race united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world.

Those numbers can be our future, our fellow citizens of the world showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say "never again."

So "never again" means that we learn from others how to forgive and forget, and ultimately live happily with one another. But that is not what "never again" means, at least for the generation of the Holocaust and for most of those who followed. For them, "never again" means that we will destroy the next would-be Fuhrer. In his entire speech, Obama never once mentions that the United States led a coalition of free peoples against Germany, Italy and Japan, nor does he ever discuss the obligation of sacrifice to prevent a recurrence. Indeed, his examples suggest that he doesn't grasp the full dimensions of the struggle against evil. Northern Ireland is a totally inappropriate example (nothing remotely approaching a Holocaust took place there), the relations between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi are hardly characterized by forgiveness, even though the president of Burundi is striving mightily to achieve a peaceful modus vivendi, and as for Darfur, well, despite the tens of thousands who demonstrated on the Mall, nobody has done much of anything to stop the Khartoum regime from slaughtering the peoples of the south.

In the history of modern times, the United States has done more than anyone else, perhaps more than the rest of the world combined, to defeat evil, and we are still doing it. Yet Obama says that we must "learn from others" how to move on, forgive and forget, and live happily ever after. But these are just words, they are not policies, or even actions. And the meanings he gives to his words show that he has no real intention of doing anything to thwart evil, any more than he had any concrete actions to propose to punish North Korea.

Given a President with this mindset can we avoid another dark-age?

Barack to Reality

fighting words

Obama's victory didn't magically eliminate America's problems and enemies.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Nov. 10, 2008, at 11:30 AM ET

---

Yes, yes, yes. I, too, took pleasure in standing in line and in exchanging pleasantries and greetings with the amazingly courteous staff at my polling station and the many citizens of my delightfully diverse Washington neighborhood. I, too, am still wearing my lapel sticker, with the jaunty words "I Voted." And I found it pretty easy to cast a vote that told the Republican Party, for which I recommended a vote last time, not to try any of this shit again. No more McCarthy tactics; no more stumblebum quitting of the campaign trail and attempting to pull out of the first presidential debate in order to wind up voting to save Lehman Bros.; no more driveling Christian fundamentalism; no more insinuation that only those silly enough to endorse them are "real Americans." No more sneers at San Francisco as if it weren't a real American city. McCain and his preposterous running mate will just have to believe in an afterlife in which they can live down the shame of what they attempted this year.

But I might possibly have voted for them all the same, clothes pin clamped over my nose in the voting booth, if only because of the crucial struggle for a free Iraq and an autonomous Kurdistan. And, in such a case, I would have been very annoyed at the suggestion that my vote was a racist one. "Historic," yelled the very headline across the top of my morning newspaper. (Just the news, please, if you would be so kind.) Would the letters have been so big for the first female vice president? And isn't it already historic that millions of white Christians voted, win or lose, for a man with one Kenyan parent, that parent having been raised as a Muslim?

So let us not over-egg the pudding. And if you think our own press and media are too uncritically adoring, just spend a second or two exposing yourself to the overseas version. On election night, I spent a little time on British and then on Australian television. For expressing a few mild doubts about the new president-elect, I was forcibly reminded in one case that the first 14 (I think it was) presidents of the United States could have owned Barack Obama, and was informed in the second case that just 40 years ago, he would not have been allowed to vote in the election, let alone win it.

Well, as it happens, our new president has no slave ancestry, and neither branch of his parentage could have been owned by anybody, or at least not by anybody American. (Muslim-run slavery, though, is an old story in Africa as well as a horribly contemporary one.) And there were not a few elected black American representatives 40 years ago, even if mainly in Northern states. The objection I make is therefore twofold. First, the election of Obama is the effect not the cause of the changes. (One of my questioners appeared to think that our president-elect had been responsible for the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.) Second, a Republican victory would have had absolutely no effect on the legal or political standing of black Americans, which is a matter of our law and our Constitution and cannot be undone by any ephemeral vote or plebiscite.

The recognition of these obvious points should also alert us to a related danger, which is the cousinhood of euphoria and hysteria. Those who think that they have just voted to legalize Utopia (and I hardly exaggerate when I say this; have you been reading the moist and trusting comments of our commentariat?) are preparing for a disillusionment that I very much doubt they will blame on themselves. The national Treasury is an echoing, empty vault; our Russian and Iranian enemies are acting even more wolfishly even as they sense a repudiation of Bush-Cheney; the lines of jobless and evicted are going to lengthen, and I don't think a diet of hope is going to cover it. Nor even a diet of audacity, though can you picture anything less audacious than the gray, safety-first figures who have so far been chosen by Obama to be on his team?

There is an element of the "wannabe" about all this—something that suggests that, if the clock were to be rolled back, every living white person would now automatically stand with John Brown at Harper's Ferry and with John Lewis at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. All the evidence we have is to the contrary: Abraham Lincoln ringingly denounced John Brown, and John F. Kennedy (he of the last young and pretty family to occupy the Executive Mansion) was embarrassed and annoyed by the March on Washington. In other words, there is something pain-free and self-congratulatory about the Obama surge. This has happened before, of course, with the high-sounding talk about the "New Frontier," the "Great Society," and "Morning in America." It's just that this time it's more than usually not affordable. There are many causes of the subprime and derivative horror show that has destroyed our trust in the idea of credit, but one way of defining it would be to say that everybody was promised everything, and almost everybody fell for the populist bait.

More worrying still, there are vicious enemies and rogue states in increasing positions of influence throughout the world (one of the episodes that most condemned the Republican campaign was its attempt to slander Sen. Joe Biden for his candid attempt to point this out), yet many Obama voters appear to believe that the mere charm and aspect of their new president will act as an emollient influence on these unwelcome facts and these hostile forces. I can't make myself perform this act of faith, and I won't put up with any innuendo about my inability to do so.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2204240/

Freedom now stands alone

Melanie Phillips
The Spectator

Wednesday, 5th November 2008

So the answer to my question turned out to be yes, America really was going to do this. A historic moment indeed. The hyperbole for once is not exaggerated: this is a watershed election which changes the fate of the world. The fear however is that the world now becomes very much less safe for all of us as a result. Those of us who have looked on appalled during this most frightening of presidential elections – at the suspension of reason and its replacement by thuggery -- can only hope that the way this man governs will be very different from the profile provided by his influences, associations and record to date. It’s a faint hope – the enemies of America, freedom and the west will certainly be rejoicing today.

America has voted for change, apparently. Change from what, precisely? From Bush? But in the second term, Bush stopped being Bush. His foreign policy lurched from paralysis to appeasement (redeemed only by the strategic genius of Gen Petraeus – and what price Petraeus now?) As Frank Gaffney wrote in the Washington Times yesterday, Bush’s Treasury is about to open the way for sharia law to be imposed upon America’s banking system. And it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that helped provoke the sub-prime lending crisis that triggered the current financial meltdown.

What this election tells us is that America voted for change because America is in the process of changing – not just demographically by becoming less white and more diverse, but as the result of a culture war in which western civilisation is losing out to a far-left agenda which has become mainstream, teaching American children to despise the founding values of their country and hijacking discourse by the minority power-grab of victim-culture.

The reaction of conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic to this undoubted change – not just in the US but in Britain too – shows the intellectual disarray caused by these profound developments. They say politicians must stop trying to hold the cultural line and go instead with the flow of change. In Britain, the Tory party has adopted this strategy. Now there are Republicans saying the same thing.

But John McCain is a Republican who does not fit the old template, who does subscribe to some of this ‘change’ agenda on a number of issues. As a result, he was incapable of attacking Obama on the most important grounds of all: that he stood for values inimical to America’s founding principles. When he did venture into this territory, it was half-cocked and far too late, appearing merely like the desperate throw of a loser. The reason he couldn’t do it earlier was that he had no coherent platform of his own. So why vote for a muddled and erratic quasi-'progressive' when the real thing is a rock star? It cannot be said too emphatically -- the Republicans lost this election. Obama ran a superbly disciplined campaign and he was an impressive candidate, particularly in his calm and stately demeanour throughout. The Republicans screwed up in government, they selected a hopelessly frail and erratic candidate, he ran a shambolic campaign. They deserved to lose.

So now we are promised a change in America’s fundamental values. And they really will be changed. Obama has said in terms that he thinks the US constitution is flawed. America’s belief in itself as defending individual liberty, truth and justice on behalf of the free world will now be expiated instead as its original sin. Those who have for the past eight years worked to bring down the America that defends and protects life and liberty are today ecstatic. They have stormed the very citadel on Pennsylvania Avenue itself.

Millions of Americans remain lion-hearted, decent, rational and sturdy. They find themselves today abandoned, horrified, deeply apprehensive for the future of their country and the free world. No longer the land of the free and the home of the brave; they must now look elsewhere.

60 WAYS TO BLESS ISRAEL AT 60

By Joel C. Rosenberg
(Washington, D.C., May 8, 2008) -- Israel turns 60 today on the Jewish calendar. The Joshua Fund team salutes the brave men and women whom God brought back to the Holy Land to fulfill the prophecies of Ezekiel 36 & 37 -- to rebuild the ancient ruins, make the deserts bloom, create an "exceedingly great army" and forge a homeland to protect and defend the Jewish people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We also salute all those Jews, Christians and other "righteous Gentiles" in the U.S. and around the world who have shown unconditional love and unwavering support to Israel in the face of tremendous opposition. Last month The Joshua Fund gathered 2,000 Christian and Jewish leaders at the international convention center in Jerusalem for the inaugural "Epicenter Conference." We celebrated Israel's birthday, examined the threats facing her at present from radical Islam, and discussed ways Christians could bless Israel at this critical hour.

Out of that conference came "60 Ways To Bless Israel At 60." We hope you will be moved to pursue some of these ways in the days and weeks ahead.

1. Help provide brand new backpacks and school supplies for needy Israeli school children. The Joshua Fund has committed $100,000 to this project, working with Jewish and Christian allies in Israel. The backpacks need to be purchased soon and in bulk to get the best prices. They will be distributed in September, when the new school year begins. Would you consider signing up to make a monthly donation to The Joshua Fund of $25, $40 or $60? All donations are tax deductible. For more information on how to make contributions by mail -- or by secure on-line credit card transactions -- please see below.

2. Stock one bomb shelter in northern Israel with food, water, a first aid kit, other emergency supplies and a secure storage locker. There are currently some 5,500 bomb shelters that need to be urgently stocked with supplies before the next war. The Joshua Fund is currently raising funds to stock 100 as soon as possible. Cost per bomb shelter: $5,500.

3. Provide one ton of food to care for needy families in northern Israel who were hit by 4,000 rockets and missiles during the 2006 war with Hezbollah. These families are still recovering from that war. Many live on less than $500 a month. And food prices are rising in Israel, as they are around the globe. Every month, therefore, The Joshua Fund pays for about 10 tons of food to be purchased by one of our allies in Israel, distributed to the needy in the north, as well as stockpiled for the next war. Cost: $2,500 per ton.

4. Help purchase desperately needed medical equipment such as respirators, ventilators, operating room lamps, mobile x-ray machines and the like for under-funded regional hospitals in Israel. At the request of hospital administrators, The Joshua Fund has adopted the Barzilai Medical Center in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon to help them raise funds for such equipment. Barzilai is the only hospital and trauma center serving the 500,000 Israelis living near the Gaza border and facing a nearly constant barrage of rockets, missiles and mortars. They are doing heroic work, but they do need our help. Cost: Some of this equipment is very costly, averaging between $20,000 to $80,000 each. A donation of $5,000 would help significantly towards meeting these vital needs.

5. Help provide food baskets to needy families in Jerusalem on Jewish holidays. Working with our local allies, The Joshua Fund recently helped finance the distribution of 680 food baskets to needy Israeli families for Passover.

6. Provide food, blankets, wheelchairs and other assistance to Holocaust victims in Israel, many of whom tragically live at or below the poverty level, even within the Jewish State.

7. Help care for the homeless in Israel.

8. Help finance soup kitchens in Israel.

9. Help care for Sudanese refugees in Israel.

10. Help provide blankets and heaters for the elderly in Israel during the cold winter months, since many do not have -- or cannot afford -- central heating.
Help finance the purchase of vans for Israeli organizations that distribute humanitarian aid so they can get supplies to the people that need them most in a more efficient manner. The Joshua Fund is involved in all these areas of relief work -- caring for Holocaust victims, the homeless, refugees, and others -- and we would be honored to get you involved in funding critically important projects such as these.

11. Track daily news coverage of Israel in English through The Jerusalem Post.

12. Track daily news coverage of Israel in English through Ynetnews.com.

13. Track daily news coverage of Israel in English through Haaretz, one of the leading papers in Jerusalem.

14. Track the latest statements and interviews by radical Islamic fanatics -- translated into English -- at the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

15. Become a faithful prayer partner for Israel and her neighbors. The Joshua Fund is looking for 100,000 partners to sign up for free "Flash Traffic" email alerts that include analysis and commentary on events and trends in Israel and the epicenter, Joshua Fund project updates, and prayer requests. More than 52,000 people from all over the world have joined already. You can join the team by clicking below.

16. Take your family on a tour of Israel.

17. Join us on a future Joshua Fund "Prayer & Vision Trip" to Israel.

18. Take Hebrew classes for the summer at your local Jewish Community Center.

19. Make friends with a local Rabbi, find ways to bless the synagogue he runs, and discuss ways to bless Israel together.

20. Learn more about the Israeli economy and business opportunities through the Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce.

For 40 more suggestions, please visit my weblog.

The New Empire of Europe

By Chuck Missler
from the July 10, 2007 eNews issue

---

It has been two years since European voters rejected the EU Constitutional Treaty, a veritable coup which left politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels scratching their heads. Efforts were made to revive the failed proposal, but to no avail. The people had spoken – or so it seemed. Today, the EU constitution is once again set to become the law of the land. However it is now being called the EU "reform treaty" and this time around its fate may not rest in the hands of the people.

The new EU reform treaty is essentially a repackaging of the EU constitutional treaty – not unlike putting lipstick on a pig – critics say the bulk of the document remains unchanged. According to Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, the reform treaty is "90 percent the same" as the former constitutional treaty. However because it is not technically a constitution, government leaders may be able to ratify the treaty without submitting it to national referendums (giving it a better chance of survival). Like the constitutional treaty, the reform treaty establishes a new permanent EU president and a new foreign policy chief. It also abolishes national vetoes in more than 50 areas, strengthens the powers of the European Parliament and European Commission, and gives the EU formal legal "personality" for the first time, enabling it to sign international treaties.

For many Europeans the EU constitution represents a loss of sovereignty and national identity. The document itself is enormous, over 160,000 words in the English version (almost 500 pages), that is supposed to streamline the government. Critics complain that the document is too long and too complex. It is written in highly technical legal jargon that has proved difficult even for experts to understand, much less the general public.

José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, recently described the European Union by saying: "We are not the United States of Europe - we are unique in the history of mankind! Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organization of empires. We have the dimension of empire but there is a difference. Empires were made with force with a centre imposing diktat. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire." Barroso, it seems, has missed the obvious: by ignoring the clear outcome of the national referendums, and pushing ahead with the treaty, the EU leaders are in fact creating this new "empire" by force. Voters rejected the constitution, but it seems it is going to be implemented anyway.

In recent years the European Union has steadily moved forward in its attempt to unite Europe politically and economically. It has succeeded in unifying and strengthening its economic market, creating a common currency, and establishing both a European legislative and judicial system. It has been suggested by some that the European Union may be the revived Roman Empire. Thus it is interesting to note that the introduction of the Euro is the first time since the days of Caesar and the Roman Empire that Europe has had a common currency, others have tried, most notably Napoleon Bonaparte, but none were successful. We will continue to observe with anticipation the historic developments taking place in Europe. There are still many obstacles the European Union must face on the road to solidarity, but in the eyes of some they have already accomplished the impossible. The once impenetrable wall between east and west, communist and free, is now gone, and in its place is a growing economic and political force.

Related Links:

• New Cutoff to Finalise European Treaty - Bloomberg
• EU Treaty An Affront to Democracy - Belfast Telegraph
• Germans and Poles at Odds Over EU Constitution - IHT
• The Rise of a European Superstate - Koinonia House

The Problem of Pakistan

Chuck Missler
from the May 22, 2007 eNews issue

---

In the current turbulent geopolitical climate international attention has been focused on efforts to stymie nuclear proliferation and combat terrorism in the Middle East. The ongoing bloodshed in Iraq, Iran's clandestine nuclear program, and the bitter battle between Israel and its foes have all taken center stage. However there is a key player in the region that is often overlooked - and which in recent weeks has grown increasingly unstable.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the sixth most populous nation in the world and the second largest Muslim nation. It is sandwiched between the Middle East and Asia, and bordered by Iran, Afghanistan, China, and India. It is also the only Islamic nation with a declared nuclear weapons program.

The Islamic Bomb

Pakistan's nuclear program was spurred on to fruition by its bitter rivalry with India. India detonated its first nuclear device, code-named "Smiling Budda," in 1974. For the next two decades it claimed that its nuclear program was only meant for peaceful research purposes. Then, in 1998, India all but declared itself a nuclear power with a series of nuclear tests, a move that angered the West and prompted Pakistan to follow suit. Pakistan began its secret nuclear weapons program in 1972, and now has between 65 and 90 nukes - roughly on par with the suspected size of India's arsenal.

After India's independence from Great Britain in 1947 the British Empire in India was divided, and the modern nations of India and Pakistan were born. The two nations have been at odds ever since. Today the conflict between the two nuclear powers centers on the disputed province of Kashmir.

Ally or Adversary

The current President of Pakistan is General Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in a military coup in 1999. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, Musharraf chose to side with the US against the Taliban government in Afghanistan. However prior to the 9/11 attacks Pakistan was a close ally of the Taliban and one of its strongest supporters. It was only under tremendous pressure from the United States and the international community that Pakistan agreed to join the war on terror. In truth, Musharraf had little choice but to comply. The United States made it clear "you are either with us, or against us."

Pakistan chose to ally itself with the United States in part because it feared a strong new alliance between the US and India. If Pakistan had refused to reverse its stance and support the US, the United States would most likely have deemed Pakistan a "terrorist state" and part of the "axis of evil." For many years Pakistan has teetered on the brink of a full-scale war with India - and if the US had weighed-in heavily on one side the consequences could have been disastrous.

Today Pakistan is growing increasingly unstable and Musharraf's authority is in jeopardy. Experts say Musharraf is under enormous strain: America is demanding that he crack down on Islamist militants, Pakistan's religious extremists are furious at him for abandoning Afghanistan's Taliban rulers and softening his line on Kashmir, and Pakistan's main political parties are shunning him because of his resistance to democratic reforms. Last Tuesday a suicide bombing in a town near the Afghan border killed 25. Meanwhile, anti-Musharraf riots have killed 40 and wounded at least 150. According to press reports, Musharraf has ordered his soldiers to kill rioters on sight. Even if Musharraf somehow weathers this storm, analysts say he is running out of options. Musharraf has survived multiple assassination attempts and he has no clear successor. If his regime falls, Pakistan could plunge into chaos.

Pakistan is considered to be a "frontline ally" in the war against terrorism. Yet despite its government's cooperation with the United States, Pakistan is home to many Islamist extremists, some with links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Militants have conducted several terrorist attacks on Americans and other Westerners in Pakistan since September 11. Many Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters fleeing from Afghanistan have taken refuge throughout Pakistan - particularly in lawless tribal regions on the Afghan border which are sympathetic to the fundamentalist cause.

Nuclear Nightmare

Much like Iraq, Pakistan is a divided nation. There are many opposing sects and ethnicities that constantly threaten to pull the country apart. In fact, less than 10 percent of its 160 million people are native speakers of the national language. The worst case scenario is our worst nightmare: nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic radicals. It is therefore essential that we do not overlook the problem of Pakistan. To learn more about what is happening in the world around us, and what it means for you and me as Christians, check out the Strategic Trends section of our website (see link below).

Related Links:

• Monitor the Strategic Trends - Koinonia House
• Pakistan Faces the Taleban's Tentacles - BBC
• Musharraf Urged to Change Course or Risk Losing Power - IHT
• Pakistan Pressured Over Radical Mosque - AP
• New Pakistan Riots Break Out - TIME

Hugo Chavez: President for Life?

Chuck Missler

[Português]

On Sunday (December 3rd), Venezuelans reelected President Hugo Chavez, an avowed socialist, who grabbed headlines recently when he referred to President Bush as "the devil" in front of the United Nations General Assembly. Chavez won 61 percent of the vote - extending his time in office for six more years.

However it appears that six more years is not enough for Chavez. In a speech on Tuesday, he announced plans for a constitutional amendment that would allow him to hold office indefinitely. "I feel obligated to push forward with this project of socialism," Chavez said in his speech, "Venezuelans, yes, 63 percent of Venezuelans voted for a shift toward socialism. And I have to make that wish true."

Since taking office, Chavez has lead Venezuela in what he calls a "Bolivarian Revolution" - his goal being to transforming Venezuela from a free democracy to socialistic regime. While in office Chavez has consolidated power, changed the constitution, and aggressively pushed various other socialist reforms. Earlier this year Hugo Chavez appointed 17 new judges to the Venezuelan Supreme Court, one of whom has publicly expressed a desire to see Chavez become "president for life."

Despite growing inflation, unemployment, poverty, and crime in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has retained a measured amount of popularity. Chavez has managed to survive several efforts to remove him from office, including an attempted coup and a national referendum. He has held on to power in large part because of an aggressive propaganda campaign that has shifted the blame for the people's problems on everyone from the nation's bureaucrats to the tyrannical empire that is the United States.

When Chavez first came to power he immediately embraced Cuba's communist leader, Fidel Castro, as Venezuela's chief ally. He also called Iraq's Saddam Hussein his "brother" and aligned himself with Libya's Moammar Qadaffi. Chavez then formed alliances with North Korea's Kim Yong-Il and then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

For the past seven years, Hugo Chavez, with the help of Cuba's Fidel Castro, has been cultivating his supporters in South America. Chavez has expanded his influence in Latin America and the Caribbean. This year, Venezuela has bought several hundred million dollars of Argentine bonds and offered similar financial support to Ecuador. Chavez also provides cheap oil to Cuba and several other countries, including Jamaica and some smaller Caribbean islands. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia all have leftist governments, and in July, Mexico came very close to electing a Communist president.

When the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed, and China pursued broad economic reform, many foresaw the end of the threat once posed by the spread of communism. But while America has focused its attention elsewhere, socialism is on the move in South America.

Related Links:
• Chavez Is Here to Stay - TIME
• Chavez: Venezuela Backs Socialism Shift - Washington Post
• Chavez to Seek End to Term Limits in New Constitution - Bloomberg
• Chavez Wins Easily in Venezuela - IHT

from the December 05, 2006 eNews issue
K-house

Lebanon's Political Unrest

Chuck Missler,
from the November 21, 2006 eNews issue

[Português]

On Tuesday, Pierre Gemayel, an influential member of the Lebanese government, was gunned down in the capital city of Beirut. Gemayel was a Christian who was opposed to Syria's involvement in Lebanese politics. Gemayel's assassination has received prompt condemnation from the international community, and it has further complicated an already tense situation. In the past two years at least five other prominent Lebanese figures have been assassinated, all of which were outspoken critics of Syria.

If Syria is responsible for Gemayel's death, then clearly it hasn't learned from past mistakes. In February of last year another prominent critic of Syria was assassinated. Rafik Hariri, an influential leader and former Prime Minister of Lebanon, was killed in a massive explosion which took the lives of 21 people. It is widely believed that Syria is directly responsible for the bombing, however their plan backfired. Instead of silencing an influential critic, Syria made Hariri a martyr and brought international attention to the situation in Lebanon. Under immense pressure from the international community, Syria was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, putting an end to its 30 year military presence in the war-torn nation.

It has yet to be seen what effect Pierre Gemayel's death will have on Lebanese politics, however his supporters have already begun to rally against Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies. Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence to suggest that Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah may attempt to topple the fragile Lebanese government. In recent weeks, Hezbollah has been consolidating its power in Lebanon, even going so far as to demand more seats in the parliament. Hezbollah's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said that the current Lebanese government would "go" and a new one would take its place. He did not say how or when it would happen. Then, following Nasrallah's comments, six pro-Syrian members of the 24-seat Lebanese cabinet resigned.

Nasrallah has threatened to call for protests in opposition to the government, but experts believe Hezbollah won't make any move without the express permission or backing of Iran and Syria. In addition to mass protests, Hezbollah may attempt to topple the country's weak democratic government by organizing boycotts and strikes - paralyzing the country. They could even attempt to shut down electrical power, water, and government services in an attempt to further destabilize the region. If Hezbollah is successful in seizing power in Lebanon, then the nation would undoubtedly become a staging point for Iran's war with Israel and the West.

According to the UN Security Council resolution that ended the Israeli-Hezbollah war this summer, Hezbollah was supposed to be disarmed. But, not surprisingly, that never happened. The Security Council has passed at least 7 resolutions going back 28 years that have demanded the same thing - none have been successfully put into action. Iran and Syria are now taking advantage of the current calm to re-arm the terrorist organization. Iran does not yet have the military strength to carry out a direct attack on Israel, thus it uses Hezbollah as its proxy. Hezbollah is an important player in Lebanon's politics and a major provider of social services to thousands of Lebanese Shiites. It operates hospitals, schools, orphanages and a television station. Its base is in Lebanon's Shiite-dominated areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa Valley. In addition, US intelligence reports say that Hezbollah cells operate in regions including Europe, Africa, South America, and North America.

Experts attribute much of Hezbollah’s widespread popularity to its claim that it forced Israel to retreat from territory it held, something no Arab government or group had ever accomplished. Hezbollah waged a violent, 18-year campaign against Israel’s control of a self-declared “security zone” in southern Lebanon, which Israel had established after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by forces under then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. In 2000, after suffering mounting casualties, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered Israeli troops to unilaterally leave the security zone. For millions of Arabs, Hezbollah achieved heroic status, and many Palestinian militants at war with Israel cite Hezbollah as an inspiration.

Truth, Lies, and the BBC

Chuck Missler
from the October 24, 2006 eNews issue

[Leia este artigo em português]

"There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it." - Comment made by a senior BBC executive

Executives at the British Broadcasting Corporation have finally been forced to admit what most of us have known for years - that the BBC's coverage of religious and political issues is inherently biased. A memo leaked to the media has revealed the details of a recent "impartiality" summit attended by senior figures at the BBC. Executives admitted that the BBC is responsible for promoting left-wing ideals and an anti-Christian sentiment.

The BBC is not impartial or neutral. According to news reports, "Most executives admitted that the corporation's representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and anti-Americanism." BBC executives also admitted that they would be willing to broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away, but they would not do so for the Koran. This is due to the "fear of offending the British Muslim community."

The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world. It is also publicly funded - nearly 80 percent of the BBC's funding comes from television license fees. In the UK, the cost of a TV license is £131.50 per household per year (that is approximately $240.00 in US funds). That money goes directly to the BBC, enabling it to provide public service broadcasting that (according to its website) is "independent, impartial and honest."

Impartial and Honest?

The BBC often broadcasts a distorted view of the war against terrorism. The BBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks on London is a good (although not the only) example. In the hours and days after their initial publication, the BBC removed the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" from several articles on its website, opting instead for more politically correct terminology.

Perhaps the BBC's most conspicuous shortcoming has been its biased reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2002, the BBC aired a now-infamous profile of Yasser Arafat which called him a "hero" and "an icon" and concluded that the corrupt Palestinian leader was "the stuff of legends." Israel has often complained about the BBC's often one-sided reporting. For a period of seven months in 2003, Israeli officials boycotted BBC news programs, declining interviews and excluding BBC reporters from briefings. The boycott was ended after the BBC appointed a panel to oversee its Middle East coverage and to ensure it would be unbiased. However in recent months there have been calls for the government to reinstitute the boycott, in large part due to the BBC's coverage of the recent war in Lebanon.

In April 2006 a report was released on the impartiality of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian. The report was commissioned by the BBC board of governors and, not surprisingly, it concluded that there "was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias." However the period of time analyzed went from August 2005, the time of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, to January 2006, when Ariel Sharon had his stroke. During this period of time circumstances dictated that Israel should receive more sympathetic coverage. Moreover, the report excluded both the BBC World Service and the international TV channel BBC World.

Despite these factors, the report still found that there were "identifiable shortcomings" in the BBC's reporting. Furthermore, it concluded that the BBC "does not consistently give a full and fair account of the conflict. In some ways the picture is incomplete and, in that sense, misleading." Yet the average viewer is unlikely to notice, unless of course they have done their homework and are familiar with the various geopolitical aspects of the conflict. According to the report, "The evidence shows that most viewers and listeners, at least within the UK, regard the BBC as unbiased. But they say they do not understand the conflict and, perhaps for that reason, do not see it as important or interesting. Given how little history or context is routinely offered, it is easy to understand their bewilderment..."

What Are They Hiding?

Several other reports have been assembled in past years on the subject of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However the BBC has refused to release the findings of those reports to the public. Last year a request was made under Britain's Freedom of Information Act to release the findings of those reports, but the BBC denied the request. A lawsuit was then filed against the BBC. It argued that since the BBC is publicly funded, taxpayers have the right to know if the BBC is being fair in its reporting. The courts have since ruled that the BBC should make the report available to the public, but the BBC has yet to comply and has decided to appeal the decision at Britain's High Court.

Discerning the Truth

As we are faced with an ever-increasing barrage information it is important to keep in mind that the media has its own agenda and takes pride in its ability to shape public opinion rather than to inform it. So what can we do about it? How do we find the truth?

Always keep in mind the underlying principle found in Acts 17:11. Don't believe everything you hear, do your own homework. Read and listen carefully, seeking to differentiate facts from opinions. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased source of information. Therefore it is important to pay attention to details, check facts, and rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict In Numbers

By Chuck missler
from the September 26, 2006 eNews issue
________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

56% of Israelis support negotiating with the Palestinian Hamas-led government
75% of Israelis believe Israel is struggling for its survival
63% of Palestinians support adopting Hezbollah's methods of attacking Israeli towns with rockets
57% of Palestinian said they support the bombing of Israeli civilians
75% of Palestinians said they support the kidnapping Israel Defense Force soldiers
80% of Palestinians believe that Israel and Palestine cannot coexist

Number of Jews worldwide: approximately 14 million
Number of Jews in the US: approximately 6 million
Number of Jews in Israel: approximately 5 million
Number of Jews killed in the Holocaust: approximately 7 million

Palestinian Refugees seeking the "Right of Return" to Israel: over 4 million
Jewish Refugees expelled from Arab countries: over 1 million

Number of times Palestinians have been offered a state of their own and have refused: at least twice (in 1948 and 2000)

Number of Israel's neighbors' active armed forces: over 2 million
Number of Israel's active armed forces: 170,000

Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned by name in the Bible: 811
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned by name in the Koran: 0

Number of terrorist attacks worldwide from August 1998 to August 2003 according to the Associated Press: 15
Number of terrorist attacks in Israel included in that list: 0
Number of terrorist attacks in Israel during that period: over 800

Length of time after the establishment of the United Nations before the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution: 50 years

Number of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel: over 50
Number of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Palestinians: 0

Number of UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: over 300
Number of UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Palestinians: 0

Chavez's Venezuela: No Laughing Matter

By Chuck Miseler
from the September 26, 2006, eNews issue

________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

Over the past seven years Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has virtually destroyed what was once the most stable and prosperous democracy in South America. Over half of Chavez's constituents live in poverty. Inflation in Venezuela has risen to 15 percent and unemployment rates stand at 13 percent. In addition, violent crime, particularly in the capital city of Caracas, has risen exponentially in recent years. Venezuela now has the highest number of deaths by gunfire per capita in the world, the situation has been described as being "absolutely out of control."

Before Chavez came to power in 1998, oil-rich Venezuela was a wealthy nation and one of South America's oldest democracies. This wealth attracted a large influx of poor immigrants from neighboring Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and the Caribbean. The poor became increasingly resentful of the wealthy and middle class. Hugo Chavez, imprisoned for a failed coup in 1992 but was later released, became the champion of the poor during the 1998 elections.

Chavez, an avowed socialist, won the election with 56 percent of the vote. He immediately embraced Cuba's communist leader, Fidel Castro, as Venezuela's chief ally. He also called Iraq's Saddam Hussein his "brother" and aligned himself with Libya's Moammar Qadaffi. Chavez then formed alliances with North Korea's Kim Yong-Il and then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Over the last year, foreign relations between the United States and Venezuela have steadily gotten worse. In a recent speech before the United Nations General Assembly Chavez referred to President Bush as "the devil" and "a tyrant." His comments provoked laughter among members of the General Assembly, and have become the topic of much media attention. He described the United States' as the "greatest threat looming over the world today," and said that "The United States empire is on the way down and it will be finished in the near future, for the good of all mankind."

Oil for Harlem

Just one day after Chavez's speech at the United Nations he appeared at a church in Harlem, where he continued his criticisms of the Bush administration and discussed the expansion of a heating oil initiative. Last year the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo began a program to provide cheap fuel to low-income families in Boston, Chicago, and New York. The non-profit organization involved in distributing the fuel, Citizens Energy Corporation, was founded by Joseph Kennedy II, a liberal activist and son of the late senator Robert F. Kennedy.

The fact that someone like Chavez is taking an interest in helping America's underprivileged should raise red flags. After all, Chavez dealings with the United States have been anything but diplomatic. Make no mistake, this latest maneuver is not an act of charity. It is a calculated political maneuver to buy influence among members of congress. He has made similar deals in neighboring countries as a means of strengthening ties with those who share similar ideals. In Nicaragua, for example, Chavez has sold oil at below market price to political leaders with socialist leanings.

Speak No Evil

Despite growing inflation, unemployment, poverty, and crime, Hugo Chavez has retained a measured amount of popularity. Chavez has managed to survive several efforts to remove him from office, including an attempted coup and a national referendum. He has held on to power in large part because of an aggressive propaganda campaign that has shifted the blame for the people's problems on everyone from the nation's bureaucrats to the tyrannical empire that is the United States.

Chavez is up for re-election in December. In a bid to retain the presidency and thus "continue the revolution" Chavez has been tightening his grip on Venezuela's freedom of speech. Chavez has passed new laws regulating the media as well as a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects. The new laws state that "anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic" can be thrown into prison. The laws apply to comments made both publicly and privately. Journalists accused of receiving any type of foreign funding can be thrown into prison for up to 30 years and are not entitled to legal due process.

A Growing Threat

In the past year Venezuela's defense budget has increased by 31 percent, to over $2 billion. That number does not include a $2.2 billion defense deal recently made with Spain. Venezuela is buying helicopters, boats and military transport planes. They have also purchased 100,000 Russian-made Kalashnikov assault. Plans are also being made to buy submarines and Russian fighter jets. (In addition to its arms deals, Russia has also endorsed Venezuela's bid to join the UN Security Council.)

Venezuela is one of the founding members of OPEC and is strongly aligned with the Islamic oil producing nations of the Middle East. President Hugo Chavez has repeatedly defended Iran in its dispute with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program, saying Iran has a right to atomic energy. In recent months the trade volume between Iran and Venezuela has skyrocketed. When the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-member governing board voted to report Iran to the UN Security Council, only Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela voted against the resolution.

Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists. Middle Eastern terrorist groups are operating cells in Venezuela, including support cells for organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Lebanon.

The restriction of democratic freedoms in Venezuela and the infiltration of Islamic radicals into South America are serious concerns. Although the situation in Venezuela has been largely overshadowed by events in the Middle East, it still poses a serious threat to the interests and security of the United States.

Can Israel Trust the UN?

By Chuck Missler

________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

The United Nations has managed to pass a ceasefire agreement meant to end the violence in Southern Lebanon. The UN Security Council resolution calls for the Lebanese government to exert its sovereignty over Southern Lebanon, which is controlled by Hezbollah. Those who hope this latest attempt at peace will succeed where others have failed so many times in the past will most likely be disappointed. The Security Council has passed seven resolutions going back 28 years that have demanded the same thing - none have been successfully put into action. The fact that Kofi Annan has been given the task of implementing this latest plan does nothing to inspire our confidence in the endeavor. Within days of the resolution, Hezbollah declared that it will not disarm, and so far the only action taken by the Lebanese government has done little but to ensure that everything will return to the way it was.

The fighting is officially over, although no clear winner has emerged. Make no mistake, Hezbollah's forces have suffered enormous losses. However Israel did not accomplish its stated goals, and has yet to recover its kidnapped soldiers. Hezbollah has taken a significant blow, but rearmament and rebuilding have already begun. Hezbollah will regroup, and may even return stronger than ever.

The UN peacekeeping force that was promised has not materialized. France was expected to lead the peacekeeping effort, but to date has only pledged a measly 200 troops. Not surprisingly, assistance from the rest of Europe has not been forthcoming. At any rate, Israel has little reason to put their faith in UN peacekeepers. How can Israel be expected to trust the UN, when only a few weeks ago UN peacekeepers were knowingly aiding Israel's enemies?

In an article in the Weekly Standard, Lori Lowenthal Marcus wrote, "During the recent month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, UN peacekeeping forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon. UNIFIL - the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978 - is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old. Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces..."

This betrayal is only one example of the UN's lopsided loyalties. The United Nations is an organization plagued by scandal, favoritism, and financial mismanagement. The United Nations was created to maintain international peace and help solve the world’s economic and humanitarian troubles, but the UN has failed time and time again to achieve its primary objectives.

The Prisoner's Peace Plan

Chuck Missler

On July 31, 2006 the Palestinian people will vote in a referendum on a proposal that has come to be known as the "prisoner's peace plan." The proposal has the support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and it is popular among the Palestinian people. However the terrorist organization Hamas, which currently controls the Palestinian government, is vehemently opposed to the plan and has attempted to block the referendum.

Some members of the media have applauded the plan as a key step forward in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. They describe the 18-point plan as one which recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abandons the Palestinian's claims to land beyond the 1967 borders. They imply that the plan is meant to bring peace with Israel. However nothing could be further from the truth.

What Does It Really Say?

The Palestinian referendum is not about making peace with Israel. It does not represent a willingness to compromise on the part of the Palestinian people, nor does it explicitly recognize the right of Israel to exist. The primary goal of the plan is to unite warring Palestinian factions under the banner of the PLO. Thus strengthening the PA and curtailing the outbreak of civil war.

The demands of the Palestinian people have not changed. They insist upon the complete withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied areas back to the 1967 border, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a Palestinian capitol in Jerusalem, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. They have also called for the removal of Israeli roadblocks, the release of some 8,000 Palestinians being detained in Israeli jails and military prisons, and the dismantling of the controversial security barrier.

The proposal begins with the following statement: "The Palestinian people at home and in exile seek to liberate their land and realize their right of freedom, return and independence, and their right to self-determination, including their right to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital on all the land occupied in 1967, guaranteeing the right of return for the refugees, liberating all the prisoners and detainees, drawing upon our people's historic right in the land of our ancestors..."

Furthermore, the document does not disavow violence as a means of achieving these goals. It upholds the "Palestinian people's right to resistance by all means" and "rejects and condemns the unjust siege on [the Palestinian] people led by the United States and Israel." The plan states that one of its goals is to "form a united resistance front called the 'Palestinian resistance front' to lead and carry out the resistance against occupation and to unify and coordinate the resistance action..." In other words, the plan is to unite the PLO, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad so they can carry out better coordinated attacks against Israel.

The Signatories

The press has dubbed the proposal the "prisoner's peace plan" because it was drafted by Marwan Barghouti, Sheik Abdel Khaliq al-Natsche, Sheik Bassam al-Saadi, and Abdel Rahim Malouh. All of whom are currently locked away in Israeli jails. Marwan Barghouti is serving five life sentences for murder plus an additional 40 years for attempted murder. Barghouti is one of the leaders of the Fatah movement and coordinated terrorist attacks during the Palestinian Intifadas. Sheik Abdel Khaliq al-Natsche is a senior Hamas leader who operated a network of charities that funded terrorist activities. Sheik Bassam al-Saadi lead the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Jenin and Abdel Rahim Malouh was a key leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Malouh recruited DFLP members to carry out attacks against Israeli civilians and military targets. These men, although they are convicted terrorists, have been described by the press as a "moderate and influential force."

If the "prisoner's peace plan" is successfully implemented the Palestinian people will eventually stop fighting each other and unite against Israel. However, so far, the plan has done more dividing than uniting. Hamas is against it and some experts believe its passage could lead to new parliamentary elections. Meanwhile the Palestinian territories continue to spiral out of control.

For most Westerners it is difficult to understand why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continued for so long or why it has resulted in so much violence. The fundamental problem is that the Palestinian leadership has ardently resisted making any concessions toward Israel and have maintained an all-or-nothing approach to peace negotiations. Too few Palestinians truly desire peace. Palestinian children are consistently taught in school to hate Israel. Most Arab nations have yet to officially recognize the right of Israel to exist, and many Muslim groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, will not allow peace unless it comes in the form of Israel's destruction.

from the June 20, 2006 eNews issue
K-House

________________________________________

What Bush did not do for New Orleans

Prof. Gerardus D. Bouw

[Leia este artigo em Português]

In case you aren't familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work: The chain of responsibility for the protection of the citizens in New Orleans is:
1. The Mayor
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security (a political appointee of the Governor who reports to the Governor)
3. The Governor
4. The Head of Homeland Security
5. The President

What did each do?

1. The mayor, with 5 days advance, waited until 2 days before he announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President). Then he failed to provide transportation for those without transport even though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any plan for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he blames the Feds for not doing what he should have done. (So much for political appointees)
3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President 2 DAYS BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of Federal troops and aid until 2 DAYS AFTER the storm hit.
4. The Director of Homeland Security positioned assets in the area to be ready when the Governor called for them.
5. The President urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a disaster State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal assistance, should the Governor decide to use it.
6. Oh and by the way, the levees that broke were the responsibility of the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The disaster in New Orleans is what you get after decades of corrupt (democrat) government going all the way back to Huey Long.
Funds for disaster protection and relief have been flowing into this city for decades, and where has it gone, but into the pockets of the politicos and their friends.
Decades of socialist government in New Orleans has sapped all self reliance from the community, and made them dependent upon government for every little thing.
Political, multicultural correctness and a lack of will to fight crime have created the single most corrupt police force in the country, and has permitted gang violence to flourish.
The sad thing is that there are many poor folks who have suffered and died needlessly because those that they voted into office failed them.

For those who missed item 5 (where the President's level of accountability is discussed), it is made more clear in a New Orleans Times-Picayune article dated August 28:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin.

Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, The city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.
The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already canceled all flights.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.
The ball was placed in Mayor Nagin's court to carry out the evacuation order. With 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and all services to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and failing to make full use of resources available within city limits, Nagin and his administration messed up.

Mayor Nagin and his emergency sidekick Terry Ebbert have displayed lethal, mind boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.
As for Mayor Nagin, he and his profile in pathetic leadership police chief should resign. That city's government is incompetent from one end to the other. The people of New Orleans deserve better than this crowd of clowns is capable of giving them.

If you're keeping track, these boobs let 569 buses that could have carried 33,350 people out of New Orleans-in one trip-get ruined in the floods. Whatever plan these guys had, it was a dud. Or it probably would have been if they'd bothered to follow it.
As for all the race-baiting rhetoric and Bush-bashing coming from prominent blacks on the left, don't expect Ray Nagin to be called out on the carpet for falling short. You want to know why? Here's why:

It's more convenient to blame a white president for what went wrong than to hold a black mayor and his administration accountable for gross negligence and failing to fully carry out an established emergency preparedness plan.

To hold Nagin and his administration accountable for dropping the ball amounts to letting loose the shouts and cries of "Racism!". It's sad, it's wrong, but it's standard operating procedure for the media and left-wing black leadership.

Some more Comments from UNREPORTED NEWS

On Friday night before the storm hit Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center took the unprecedented action of calling Nagin and Blanco personally to plead with them to begin MANDATORY evacuation of NO and they said they'd take it under consideration. This was after the NOAA buoy 240 miles south had recorded 68' waves before it was destroyed.
President Bush spent Friday afternoon and evening in meetings with his advisors and administrators drafting all of the paperwork required for a state to request federal assistance (and not be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or having to enact the Insurgency Act). Just before midnight Friday evening the President called Governor Blanco and pleaded with her to sign the request papers so the federal government and the military could legally begin mobilization and call up. He was told that they didn't think it necessary for the federal government to be involved yet. After the President's final call to the governor she held meetings with her staff to discuss the political ramifications of bringing federal forces. It was decided that if they allowed federal assistance it would make it look as if they had failed so it was agreed upon that the feds would not be invited in.

Saturday before the storm hit the President again called Blanco and Nagin requesting they please sign the papers requesting federal assistance, that they declare the state an emergency area, and begin mandatory evacuation. After a personal plea from the President Nagin agreed to order an evacuation, but it would not be a full mandatory evacuation, and the governor still refused to sign the papers requesting and authorizing federal action. In frustration the President declared the area a national disaster area before the state of Louisiana did so he could legally begin some advanced preparations. Rumor has it that the President's legal advisers were looking into the ramifications of using the insurgency act to bypass the Constitutional requirement that a state request federal aid before the federal government can move into state with troops - but that had not been done since 1906 and the Constitutionality of it was called into question to use before the disaster.

Throw in that over half the federal aid of the past decade to NO for levee construction, maintenance, and repair was diverted to fund a marina and support the gambling ships. Toss in the investigation that will look into why the emergency preparedness plan submitted to the federal government for funding and published on the city's website was never implemented and in fact may have been bogus for the purpose of gaining additional federal funding as we now learn that the organizations identified in the plan were never contacted or coordinating into any planning - though the document implies that they were.

The suffering people of NO need to be asking some hard questions as do we all, but they better start with why Blanco refused to even sign the multi-state mutual aid pack activation documents until Wednesday which further delayed the legal deployment of National Guard from adjoining states. Or maybe ask why Nagin keeps harping that the President should have commandeered 500 Greyhound busses to help him when according to his own emergency plan and documents he claimed to have over 500 busses at his disposal to use between the local school busses and the city transportation busses - but he never raised a finger to prepare them or activate them.

This is a sad time for all of us to see that a major city has all but been destroyed and thousands of people have died with hundreds of thousands more suffering, but it's certainly not a time for people to be pointing fingers and trying to find a bigger dog to blame for local corruption and incompetence. Pray to God for the survivors that they can start their lives anew as fast as possible and we learn from all the mistakes to avoid them in the future.

At