The Real Foreign Policy Makers
By Deanna Spingola
14 June 2005
As an allegedly Christian nation we ought to be a light on a hill, the salt that has not lost its savor, and we are to esteem others as ourselves. Christ did not power manage, propagandize or manipulate – he lovingly invited. He justly exhibited righteous indignation at the materialistic moneychangers in "His Father’s" house. That event appears to be the only exchange in which he demonstrated anything but genuine love for others. As individuals and as a nation we should exhibit these same selfless characteristics.
Using a scriptural reference to establish a personal as well as a national example I cite the following: Matthew 7:1 - 5
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote (similar to a sliver) that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam (really big) that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Admittedly I seem to be making a judgment here. However, to make wise personal choices, the Lord has given us the responsibility to evaluate and judge circumstances, but not people. Often we pass judgment and even offer our frequently uninvited opinions as constructive criticism but rarely can one individual change the heart of another. We, with heavenly help, only have the power to change ourselves. Individuals and nations may very well have this characteristic in common. Given this ethical parameter did America have a legitimate moral justification for assaulting Iraq for possible possession of WMD’s based on contrived circumstances? After failing to discover WMD’s did we have a legitimate moral justification for capturing and detaining Saddam Hussein, an alleged tyrant? As an afterthought did we have a moral right to attempt to impose an American friendly alternative form of government?
Why did our far-from-faultless government feel compelled to critique another regime/culture thousands of miles away given our own very serious, yet completely ignored troubles? These critical problems constitute a larger than life beam in our national eye. Shouldn’t our administration recognize and extract this obvious beam rather than cast their critical, greedy eyes on the inequities of a strategic and conveniently oil rich country? If we sincerely wish to assist countries less fortunate then we could truly help. Less fortunate foreign citizens never benefit when we redistribute our wealth to their wicked leaders. True help does not come in the form of unearned government handouts. That merely builds dependency. True Christians desire to raise others, not keep them down through control of the proverbial purse strings. We are always in a much better position to assist others when we are on higher ground. Genuine assistance comes in the form of education – the old cliché: teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish is very applicable here.
If we sincerely wish to obliterate a country’s tyranny let us start with our own and terminate the horrendous long-term practice of killing infants under the guise of women’s rights. Or perhaps we should enforce our immigration laws, arrest and prosecute real criminals including elected officials; eccentric rock stars, aging actors and retired sports heroes. We should fine employers who hire illegal aliens. The government should stop plundering the taxpayer for the redistribution of wealth and discontinue the exorbitant congressional pension and health plan. Our elitist congress has absolutely nothing at stake as they deliberate the social security issue for the rest of us common folk. The lengthy list of national problems could consume reams of paper. We have more than enough problems to occupy us without looking elsewhere.
This nation is in gross error when we, with absolute arrogance, attempt to restructure a foreign country and impose an alternate form of government on a people culturally different thousands of miles away. Our elected officials are obligated to us – not to taxpayer funded nation rebuilding elsewhere. If a populace desires change it must come through the process of determination and effort. Our own constitution was ordained and established by the people, not an elite colonial group who seized control or a powerful foreign government. The citizens of each nation determine the type and quality of leadership they desire either by their cumulative voices or by raising up against a tyrannical government and doing whatever they must do, including sacrificing their blood to divest themselves of enslavement under wicked officials.
The whole purpose of a constitutional government is that the power rests with the people and that they delegate certain powers to the legislative bodies that they establish. A government, technically hired by the people, cannot legally or morally do what the individual cannot do by himself. A person cannot lawfully demand money from his neighbor to compensate for poor budgeting in his own household. Nor can one individual demand structural changes in his neighbor’s home or in the home around the block or two miles away. We, the people, through the instrumentality of the constitution have not given these rights to our government. In the defense of our country, they have the right to raise an army to defend us. They do not have the legal authority to offensively attack other countries. If the country were still being governed under the auspices of the constitution, the government would be concerned about our people, our borders and our freedoms. However, when an individual or group of individuals has a little power and authority it is unfortunate but typical that they will usurp even more power and authority. It is during this process that they invariably sacrifice the principles that initially motivated them to serve their country and their fellowmen. It is also during this process that our officials no longer represent us – they have embraced another objective.
Because of a stealthy subtle neoconservative government takeover, our country is in the direst circumstances. The Neoconservatives and others with one-world globalist goals have, slowly and subtly spread their influence throughout our government and our media which has eclipsed the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. Through their covert agenda our foreign policy has drastically changed. Our military is now used for UN peacekeeping missions, nation rebuilding and toppling regimes who get in the way of the one-world agenda. We have become the planetary policeman promoting democracy, socialism, regime change or whatever else is currently needed wherever we happen to be, invited or not. The neoconservative war hawks define our foreign policy and devise warfare calculated to bring strategic countries under their control while destroying our own nation in the process. This has brought a dark cloud of utter destruction to overshadow our republic like a burial shroud.
The benign-sounding foundations or groups such as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the Council on Foreign Relations (1921), the forerunner of the United Nations, promote a one-world or globalist agenda. PNAC was established in the spring of 1997 with the intention of promoting American Global leadership. The chairman/co-founder is William Kristol, son of Irving Kristol (CFR), considered the godfather of neo-conservatism. William Kristol, a trustee for the Manhattan Institute, is also the editor/co-founder, along with John Podhoretz, of the Weekly Standard, established September 17, 1995. William Kristol and Fred Barnes edit this so-called "conservative" magazine, which they publish 48 times a year. It promulgates the war hawk mentality that infects the most popular "conservative" talk show radio hosts. Some contributing editors to the Weekly Standard are Tucker Carlson, Joseph Epstein, Charles Krauthammer (CFR), Robert W. Kagan (CFR) foreign policy analyst and son of Donald Kagan (CFR) Yale Professor and Fulbright scholar, Brit Hume, John Podhoretz (son of Norman Podhoretz - CFR) and other similarly connected individuals.
The other PNAC co-founder is Robert W. Kagan (CFR). Kagan is a columnist for the Washington Post, a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. Andrew Carnegie, an internationalist, established the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on November 25, 1910, his 75th birthday. He believed that war could be eliminated by stronger international laws and organizations. In 1903, he gave 1.5 million dollars for the construction of the Peace Palace at the Hague. Currently, the Moscow Center of the Carnegie Endowment assists in the establishment of public policy analysis among the states of the former Soviet Union and the United States. The Endowment publishes Foreign Policy, a leading magazine on international politics and economics with readers in over 120 countries.
Project For A New American Century:
The PNAC mission statement has twenty-five signatories. Seventeen (68%) of the twenty-five belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. This should raise the red flag as their ultimate goal is one world government. The Council on Foreign Relations publishes a journal entitled Foreign Affairs.
The secretive preliminary goals of the Project for a New American Century and the neoconservatives seem to be as follows:
1. Remake America in the image of an imperialistic nation prepared for global domination.
2. Remake other nations into the socialistic democracy that many people seem to think we have - while abandoning our constitution.
3. They believe we should spend more for defense.
4. They believe in intervention – hence the abandonment of the more Christian, isolationist mentality of the founding fathers.
5. Infiltrate and hold high often unelected government positions. 1
A PNAC letter to President Bush dated September 20, 2001 included strong encouragement for the nation’s "first war of the 21st century" including the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, and the capture and prosecution of any and all perpetrators of 9/11. The forty signatories, members of PNAC, many listed above, also encouraged Bush to go after any other group that means us harm. They strongly encouraged Bush to topple Saddam Hussein’s government and to give full financial and military support to any Iraqi opposition. That letter was signed by Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, and Paul Wolfowitz.
The letter encouraged targeting the terrorist organization Hezbollah and the countries that support them: Iran and Syria. If Iran and Syria fail to comply and cooperate then the United States must take any action or retaliation necessary against these countries. In other words - get them before they get us which means preemptive assaults. Their interest does not include North Korea or China which is interesting considering they actually have adequate weapons and the mentality to use them against us.
They further recommended that the United States withhold any support of any kind to the Palestinians in favor of support to Israel. Finally, the letter favored major military spending and recommended the United States enlistment of other countries for the support of our nation’s actions.
So we are spending money that we do not have in a country that was not a threat with an eye towards other military targets in the same region. Based on the encouragements in the letter above and recent statements from the administration we seem to be following the agenda of the PNAC rather than the American people and our elected officials who are apparently mute or just plain ineffective about this matter. This situation is probably in part the result of the pervasive fear the citizens of this country felt after 9/11. We are willing to trade many of our liberties for a measure of security. We, by our silence, must also be willing to give up the last vestiges of our constitutional republic in favor of becoming an empire builder. As the vulture-like war hawks circle overhead, we must also be prepared to give up our so-called Judeo Christian (a term used after WW II) heritage for questionable dominance over those too weak to fight our counterfeit cowboy superiority. I can almost discern the death rattle of this great country that once had leaders of honesty and integrity. We have been duped, again!!
© Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved
Deanna Spingola's articles
are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the
person or organization must not
charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and
full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.