The pope’s resignation seems to have surprised almost everyone, everyone that is except the Iranians. In spite of the official Vatican statement that the Pope’s resignation was due to his failing health, Nader Talebzadeh, an Iranian journalist and film director, told an audience at Imam Khomeini International University the real reason for the Pope’s resignation.

“In the past 600 years no pope has ever resigned,” he said. “Therefore a question arises in the public mind as to the reason for it. Of course, the justification provided by the West is that the Pope has grown old.”

Talebzadeh claims that the truth behind the Pope’s surprise announcement is related to a book most of our readers have probably never heard of.

“A gospel named the Gospel of Barnabas, which recognizes the prophet of Islam, which Christianity claims to be fake, is the reason [for the Pope’s resignation]. Throughout history, whenever this gospel was found it was quickly bought and disappeared. It is a gospel in which the name of Islam’s prophet has been mentioned many times.”

Talebzadeh goes on to say that the gospel was found in 2000 by the Turkish police and is being kept there. He is referencing stories that emerged in the Turkish press, and then throughout the Middle East last year, one of which claimed that the Vatican had requested a copy of this book.

These claims are not new. In the last century, there has been significant interest in the Gospel of Barnabas and several claims to have found early copies of this controversial gospel. The book made a stir in the early 1900’s when it was translated first into English and then Arabic. It made headlines in Turkey in the 1980s after a coup carried out by the military to suppress leftist sentiment. Pakistan has run excerpts from the book in its national newspapers for years. Various Muslim scholars have claimed that it is the truest extant copy of the words of Jesus.

Talebzadeh directed a film about the life of Jesus entitled “The Messiah”, which is based on the Gospel of Barnabas. The Gospel of Barnabas reflects many elements of Islamic theology, most notably the claim made by Jesus himself that he was not the Son of God, but that people would pervert his message and make this claim. Another interesting fact is that John the Baptist is replaced everywhere in the Gospel of Barnabas with Jesus, who claims to be preparing the way for Mohammed.

The story behind this enigmatic text is as interesting as the storyline is fantastical.  

There are only two extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas, and only one is complete – the Italian version presently kept in the Austrian National Library; the other is a half-finished Spanish manuscript found in the 1970s in Australia.

The Italian version eventually made its way into the library of Eugene of Savoy, arguably one of the greatest generals of his time. When he died, it was bequeathed with his entire library to the crown.

George Sale mentions the Gospel of Barnabas in the introduction to his English translation of the Qur’an. Sale had in his possession a complete copy of the Spanish version. In fact, the extant Spanish text is likely one that was being copied from Sale’s text when he died at the young age of 39.

In the West, the extant versions seem to have first surfaced in Amsterdam of the early 1700’s, and although the Gospel of Barnabas was discussed by intellectuals, it was eventually forgotten until 1907, when it was translated into English by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg from the Italian version kept in Vienna.

In their introduction, the Raggs pointed out many of the historical inaccuracies and explained why they believed the book was likely a forgery. However, their English version was translated into Arabic, the introduction was omitted, and the rest of the story about how the church suppressed the truth and hid the gospel is history, well, history of the sort one finds in state-run schools, changed and distorted beyond recognition.

Nader Talebzadeh gave no evidence for his assertion that the Gospel of Barnabas was the reason for the Pope’s resignation, but the implication for his audience was clear. The Pope had read the Gospel of Barnabas, understood the truth and could not in good conscience continue to lead a church which had suppressed the truth for so long. In other words, the Pope is somehow principled enough to recognize the truth but not courageous enough to say it.

The rumor that a scandal nicknamed VatiLeaks, involving gay prelates inside the Vatican, may not sell as many copies of his movie, but it is more plausible by far than any claim that the Gospel of Barnabas is behind the Pope’s resignation.

A commission of the Turkish Parliament has agreed to consider a proposal to open the Hagia Sophia up to Muslims for worship and officially recognize it as a mosque. See this link for the story. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/looking-luke/2013/feb/5/turkish-parliament-considers-converting-hagia-soph/

We are conducting a survey to understand international sentiment on the issue. Take a minute to respond to the survey (only two questions). 

In an age when there is so much concern about political correctness, tolerance, minority rights and the public good, it is essential to remember that the smallest minority in the world is the individual.

The individual has no group lobbying for him, no party representing him. Movements, parties, churches, sports teams, associations, and all other "group-think" entities are, by definition, "collectivist". They unite people around common values and goals, not individual ones. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of them. In fact, they are an expression of "individual" choices.

Still, there is the danger that these "individual" choices made in a "group-think" environment will trump what is the essence of political freedom - the ability of the individual to live his life relatively free of unnecessary constraint. This was clearly in the forefront of the American founders' minds when they used the language "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are all explicitly "individual" matters not societal ones. The purpose of law, the meaning of freedom is the protection of individual rights. This is not to say that "social justice" is an invalid concept, but the subjection of the minority to the majority is, and always will be, tyranny.

Those who know me well understand my deep love for the people and country of Turkey. I will always view my time there as one of the greatest learning experiences of my life. These same people know that my devotion is not blind either. I have never written an article about the corruption and injustice for the people in the Sudan, but I have written many about similar problems in Turkey. It's not that I don't care about the Sudan. I do, but I only have so many hours in a day and Turkey is closer to my heart.
My intent has always been to help those outside of Turkey understand the country, its people and their various cultures. It has always been my hope that any criticism would be viewed as constructive. The Sledgehammer (Balyoz) case is no different.

I'm not privy to all of the evidence and haven't sat through the trials, but I have poured over hundreds of pages, including court petitions, trial summaries, parts of the indictment and expert witness reports regarding the evidence. It simply doesn't pass the 'smell test'. Something is wrong here.

A few days ago, I received an email from the sister of one of the defendants, asking the following questions (translation my own). They are worth considering.

IS THIS WHAT GUILTY PEOPLE DO?

 


1.    Do the guilty start a petition to have the “Trials Carried Live on Television” and submit it to the Ministry of Justice with 50,000 signatures?

 2.    Do the guilty insist that the person specified in the prosecution’s indictment as having "Prevented the coup” be heard as a witness?

 3.     Can the guilty obtain 30 expert witness reports from universities (METU, ITU, Boğaziçi, etc.) sworn expert witnesses and foreign forensic institutions demonstrating that the CDs presented against them as evidence are false?

 4.    Do the guilty insist that the court "appoint an expert witness of its own choosing just as long as one is appointed?"

 5.    Do the guilty demand that the expert witnesses who have reportedly submitted reports against them be heard in court? When this request is denied, do they then insist that the expert answer written questions?

 6.    Do the guilty insist that the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Coup Research Commission examine the case?

 7.    Do the guilty petition the European Court of Human Rights?  

 8.     Do the guilty submit a petition to the United Nations Arbitrary Detention Working Group?

 9.    Do the guilty return from abroad and say “put me on trial” without waiting for a court summons?

 10. Do the guilty make a “1-minute” defense so as not to prolong the trial when facing a sentence of life in prison?

 11. Do the guilty say to the tribunal during their defense, “Please look at me when I’m talking to you?”

 12. Do the guilty say, “Please ask me anything,” during the cross-examination?

 13. Do the guilty demand that individuals on the list they were supposed to have prepared, and who they commissioned or those they are said to have recommended being discharged from the Turkish Armed Forces be heard as witnesses?

 14. Would the lawyer for the guilty risk facing charges for his client? When the court did bring charges, does this same lawyer say, “This is, for me, a medal of honor?”

 15. Do the guilty file charges against the expert witnesses, police, prosecutors and judges who have accused them?

 16. For the love of God, is there not a single witness to take the stand against the 326 individuals who are said to be guilty?

 17. Let’s say a witness cannot be found, is there not a single piece of evidence against these guilty individuals, such as a signed document, wire-tapped recording, etc.

 

December 23, 2012 – For over a decade now, US administrations have hailed Turkey’s Islamist AKP government led by Prime Minister Erdogan as a model of democracy and “moderate” Islam. In the wake of the Arab Spring, Prime Minister Erdogan traveled to Libya, Egypt and Tunisia as an extension of American “soft power” to encourage fledgling governments to adopt the Turkish version of Islamic democracy. The problem here is that Washington is again allowing pragmatism to trump principle. The US is apparently so eager to find alternative vehicles of political expression to combat radical Islam in the Middle East that it is willing to gloss over the gross violations of basic human rights being perpetrated in its chosen “model” for the world of Islam.

Return of the Ottomans?

It is no secret that Erdogan and his chief advisors are ardent admirers of the Ottoman state, the vast empire ruled by the Turks for 600 years. This open admiration coupled with the government’s foreign policy strategies indicate that Erdogan's government is seeking to regain a similar type of influence in the region. The question is which Ottoman Sultan Erdogan is trying to emulate.

Sultan Beyazid mi?

In 1485 Sultan Beyazid II issued a decree banning the printing press in the Ottoman Empire. It would be two and half centuries (1727) before printing of Arabic letters would be permitted.

In its 2012 report, the watchdog group Reporters Without Borders, which is based in France, confirms what press freedom activists and international observers have been shouting from the rooftops for years now. The secular, constitutional, democratic, Republic of Turkey, a candidate for EU membership and the only Muslim member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been waging a campaign of terror against freedom of the press, jailing more journalists for their professional activities than any other country in the world.

With 72 journalists currently in prison pending trial, at least 46 of which RSF has determined are being incarcerated for their journalistic work, Turkey has more than twice as many reporters in prison as China (30), followed by Eritrea (28), Iran (26) and Syria (21).

RSF called Turkey, “...the world’s biggest prison for journalists, a sad paradox for a country that portrays itself as a regional democratic model.”

Although their tally differs slightly, The Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, also puts Turkey at the top of its list of offenders. Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand is quoted as saying that the Turkish government “does not differentiate between these two major things: freedom of expression and terrorism.”

Erdogan’s government claims that these journalists are being held for serious crimes, namely membership in armed terrorist organizations and that their detentions have nothing to do with journalism. But, the facts tell a different story. The AKP may not have banned the press, but it has ruthlessly suppressed dissent and intimidated its political opponents, especially those voicing their opinions in the public arena by sending them to prison and leaving them there to rot.  

Sultan Abdülhamid mi?

In 1880, Sultan Abdülhamid responded positively to attempts by Sheikh Ubeydullah to win some degree of autonomy for the Kurds under Turkish protection. It looked like the Turks and Kurds might have found a federal solution, but it was short-lived and Kurdish aspirations were dashed when the Ottomans reasserted supreme control.

This is not unlike to Erdogan’s much touted Kurdish Initiative, which was supposed to bury the hatchet between the two peoples. When the Kurds did not respond to Turkish magnanimity as he had hoped, he followed in the footsteps of Sultan Abdülhamid wearing boots of iron.

The European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) reports that around 8,000 politicians, trade-unionists, journalists, artists, students, human rights activists and their lawyers have been the victims of mass arrests in Turkey since 2009. Many of these arrests have been part of the Turkish government’s operation against the KCK (Union of Communities in Kurdistan) under the Anti-Terrorism Law of 1991.

Those arrested include Mr. Ragip Zarakolu, a publisher nominated for the Nobel Prize by members of the Swedish Parliament and a founding member of the Turkish Human Rights Association (IHD); Prof. Büsra Ersanlı, a constitutional law expert, and Ayşe Berktay, a respected translator, researcher and global peace and justice activist, who was one of the main organizers of the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul in 2005. A total of 205 individuals have been indicted in the case and the next hearing is scheduled for February 4, 2013.

Thirty-six Turkish and Kurdish lawyers were arrested in raids conducted across the country in November 2011. IHD Vice President Muharrem Erbey is still in prison awaiting trial and was not even released to receive the Ludovic-Trarieux Prize from the German Minister of Justice in November 2012.

In questioning by parliament, Turkish Minister of Justice Sadullah Ergin admitted that 2,146 people are currently on trial in the KCK operation, of which 992 are in prison and 274 are elected representatives. This is just one example of the “mass trials” being conducted in Turkey, trials that often take years and during which even nonviolent individuals who do not pose a flight risk are held without bail.

The European Commission’s 2011 Progress Reports states: “Frequent use of arrests instead of judicial supervision, limited access to files, failure to give detailed grounds for detention decisions and revisions of such decisions highlight the need to bring the Turkish criminal justice system into line with international standards and to amend the anti-terror legislation.” The ELDH report notes that since the founding of the European Court of Human Rights, the majority of violation judgments have been handed down against Turkey, even more than those against Russia.

Sultan Mahmud mu?

For centuries the Janissaries, the elite troops of the Ottoman Empire, were the terror of Europe and the spearhead of Ottoman military expansion into southern Europe. They may have been an asset on the battlefield, but they were always a thorn in the Sultan’s side at home. The Janissaries were often the de facto rulers of the Empire. When their demands were not met, they rioted. Their power was so great that they had the heads of unpopular viziers handed to them on a platter. In 1826, Mahmud II solved this problem once and for all by turning artillery on the Janissary barracks and slaughtering the entire lot.

The “mass trial” technique used against political opponents was also employed against the military starting in 2008. In the Balyoz (Sledgehammer) and Ergenkon cases, hundreds of high-ranking officers and generals from the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) are accused of plotting to overthrow Erdogan’s government. As a result, members of the armed forces opposed to the Islamist AKP have been liquidated, much like the Janissaries.

Convictions were handed down in the Sledgehammer case earlier this year even though it has been convincingly demonstrated that some of the digital “evidence” in the alleged coup plot was fabricated. The Ergenkon trial is ongoing. But last year the four most senior military officers resigned in protest of the continuing detention of 250 officers.

The need for reform in the military has been obvious for a long time. It viewed itself as the guardian of the secular regime in Turkey and wielded an inordinate amount of power over the country, power that the EU and proponents of democracy claimed was antithetical to the rule of law and government of, by and for the people. The army was a source of ultra-nationalism and displayed fascist tendencies. It often opposed the opening of the country to foreign involvement and investment, but it was committed to the secular principles of Atatürk, and supporters have long insisted that without it Turkey would be another Islamic state under sharia law.

It is in this context that the military trials must be viewed. Many Turks would expect the military to have drawn up contingency plans for dealing with any attempt by a religiously motivated political party to impose sharia law and overthrow the constitutional order. This is not "coup planning."

Unfortunately for the military, Erdogan's friends in the West apparently agree with Erdogan’s decision to deal with the military. So Erdogan is following in the footsteps of Mahmud II with this one-and-done approach to eliminating the problematic military establishment. The problem is that these mass trials have clearly violated principles of due process and certainly convicted innocent men. Necessary collateral damage? Maybe. As the Turkish proverb says, ‘Green wood burns too when lit alongside the dry.’

Sultan Selim mi?

Selim III was a very reform-minded ruler who was well-educated and loved literature and calligraphy. He was said to be a brilliant musician and was a patron of the fine arts. His ascendancy to the throne was an occasion of great joy, for the people had hoped that he would restore their former superiority.

Erdogan too has initiated a number of important reforms. His administration has, at least in word, recognized the rights of minorities more than any government since the Republic was founded. The political stability helped foster a period of incredible economic growth. He has pushed for democracy in the Middle East and championed Turkey’s membership in the EU. He also launched the Alliance of Civilizations with Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero. The window dressing is impressive.

Selim III did not have an auspicious end. His efforts to reform the military eventually backfired and he abdicated only to be assassinated two months later. The blatant disregard for human rights may prove to be Erdogan’s undoing as well.

Last week Prime Minister Erdogan went to Middle East Technical University to celebrate the launch of a satellite. The university has a reputation for opposing right-wing Islamic governments. Erdogan must have felt threatened as his visit was accompanied by 2,500 police, 20 armored vehicles and 105 protective vehicles. There were clashes between students and police. News of the event quickly spread around the world via social media, using the slogan, “Let the Sultan issue his decrees, the country belongs to us.”

Western kowtowing

For decades now, many international and European organizations have condemned Turkey’s human rights record, but neither Washington nor Belgium nor the UN has ever recommended sanctions. It is time for change.

Support for the oppressive policies of governments Washington views as a “strategic partner” comes straight out of Washington’s playbook of failure. Remember US support for Saddam Hussein in the proxy war to counter the expansion of Iranian power and how necessary it was to support the dictator? Iraq failed while Iran's mullahs remain in power. Recall the billions of dollars in foreign aid, including weapons, for Mubarak’s Egypt in the hopes that he could contain radical Islam. The oppressive policies of Mubarak’s authoritarian government only encouraged the “martyr” sentiment and today the Muslim Brotherhood ratified a constitution based on sharia law.

It is time for President Barack Obama to call his friend Erdogan and have a frank conversation about what it means to be the leader of a free people under the rule of law. It is time to put principle above pragmatism. The last thing the West needs is a Sultan in Ankara.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/looking-luke/2012/dec/23/Turkey-erdogan-washington-sultanate/#ixzz2HUZKr0Y5

The article I wrote on Monday about Erdoğan's AKP government has drawn quite a bit of fire, especially on Twitter. Don't get me wrong; there was plenty of positive feedback as well. But, I was shocked at how some people viewed this article as a "hit piece" against Erdoğan. One person even asked how much I was paid to write this "hate-filled, malicious piece." Unfortunately, people tend to characterize "telling the truth" as hate speech whenever they disagree. Remember what Orwell said. "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

The other knee-jerk reaction has been for people to label me a "neocon" or an ultra right-winger. This is hilarious. Hürriyet, one of Turkey's biggest newspapers, fell into this same error. The political views attributed to neocons are diametrically opposed to my own. Of course, Hürriyet may have simply been attempting to distance the newspaper from the views I presented all the while making it available for their readers. In that case, I understand their tactic.

Then, there is the tried and true, "He's a Jew," line of attack. In their world, being a Jew is essentially a crime; it makes one less than human. On this point too I must disappoint them as I have not a drop of David's blood in my veins.

What I simply want to point out is that all of us should judge people based on their actions and their opinions, and we should be sure we have the facts before we start making the judgments.

DALLAS December 7, 2012 – Seventy-one years ago today, America’s Pacific fleet was attacked by the Japanese Imperial Army at Pearl Harbor. Described by FDR as the “day of infamy,” this marked the beginning of a brutal chapter in the history of not only America, but all of the nations plunged into the Pacific blood bath. December 7th is also the release date of a new book by Dr. Mary Jane Hodges Vance entitled Mary of the Angels, the saga of a Spanish family and biography of her mother Maria de los Angeles Josefa Gabina Gamero y Cucullu.

The story opens in Spain. It is 1836 and the country is being ripped apart by civil war between Loyalists and Rebels. Don José Maria Gamero makes a critical decision to take his wife and only son José M. Gamero away from the violence of his homeland and start a new life in the Philippines. It was, of course, impossible for him to know that his flight from war in Spain would put his grandchildren and great grandchildren in the middle of the Pacific theater of WWII almost a century later.

José M. Gamero grows up in the Philippines and eventually marries a beautiful Spanish girl, the first of four marriages which result in twenty children. The rigors of childbirth and difficult conditions of life in the 19th century provide ample room for the Angel of Death to perform his duties.  The family's strong Catholic faith is passed down through the generations and helps them makes sense of these regular visits from the Angel of Death.

Maria de los Angeles chronicles the family’s adventures and misfortunes, providing unique insight into the lives of Spanish colonists in the Philippines and the hazards of living in a foreign land. It is a story of faith, which also meant excommunication when one of the Gamero daughters falls for a Russian Jew. Lorenzo is disowned for being seduced by and marrying a native girl. Salud falls for a predatory German. 

It is the journey of a family over four generations. The tale of how a colonial Spanish family became embittered towards America due to the Spanish American War and the annexation of the Philippines, but later fell in love with this same country when rescued from Japanese occupation.

The story relates how the Angel of Death visited the islands in the flu epidemic of 1918 and the family’s self-imposed quarantine. With the death of Maria's father Don José Gamero when she was only three, the upper middle-class family gradually begins to suffer economically. All of the children contribute to the family coffers as they grew old enough to work.

Maria de los Angeles gives the reader anecdotal glimpses of a world of mestizos, nationalism and religious fervor. She meets a young gringo from Quinlan Texas, an entrepreneur named Jesse Hodges, and even though he is sixteen years her senior, he eventually succeeds in capturing her heart.

Maria chronicles the ups and downs of life, its reversals, its joys and its sorrows, all against a backdrop of the Church, which plays such a central role in their lives.

The Great Depression and a series of failed ventures and broken promises put the family in dire financial straits, struggling just to survive, but this is exactly the skill set they will need to endure the horror of the Japanese occupation lurking just around the corner.  

With tensions in the Pacific rising, Jesse and Mary Hodges allow their oldest son Bobby to join the Navy. His letter of acceptance arrives six weeks before the Japanese invasion. On December 7, 1941, Bobby bids farewell to his family and goes with a friend to begin serving in the Navy. Later they receive word that Pearl Harbor has been bombed. The invasion of the Philippines begins on December 8th and except for a Christmas letter from Bobby received on December 19th, they never hear from their son again.

Maria's poignant first-hand retelling of the occupation is a sobering reminder to us all that forces of evil haunt this world. The desperation and fear that swept the island when American forces abandoned it to the Japanese is palpable. It is a touching personal narrative about what it meant to live under an occupying army.

Everyone was constantly subject to search, beating, seizure of property and nearly arbitrary capital punishment for the smallest infractions. One of their neighbors, a neutral Swiss citizen, was tied to a telephone pole, bayoneted and left to bleed to death because a shortwave radio was found in his home. All of the Americans in the area, including her husband, were interred at Santo Thomas, where there were thirteen toilets and twelve showers for 1200 men. This number would eventually swell to 5,000. 

Walter D. Edmunds characterized the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, saying, "In the Philippines the personnel of our armed forces almost without exception failed to assess accurately the weight, speed, and efficiency of the Japanese Air Force." The result was a humanitarian disaster, crushing defeat of the unprepared American forces and the infamous Bataan Death March.

Mary of the Angels is a tale of survival, a steady stream of reverses and the indomitable human spirit in the face of hardship. The story is moving reminder that the difference between what someone will eat and what they will not eat is about 72 hours. Mealworms in the flour are viewed as a protein supplement. Iguana is added to the grill list. Mary Jane, Maria's daughter, stands in line at the slaughterhouse every day for the offal the Japanese don’t want - intestines, brains, tongue, congealed blood and other organs.

Life is fragile, fleeting, prone to fly away like a butterfly. Women watch as the Japanese shoot their husbands and sons in front of the trenches that will become their graves and were dug with their own hands.

Hunger eventually trumps fear as people loot and rob just to stay alive. The campaign of terror is everywhere around them. Comfort women are forced to provide sexual favors to Japanese soldiers on the street in broad daylight. Those who become pregnant have their bellies ripped open and are allowed to die.

It is no wonder that prayer pervades the entire book. Prayers offered for the strength to survive the Japanese occupation, prayers that they will survive the liberation, prayers for their father in the concentration camp, prayers that sickness will not leave the children orphaned. In the end, the prayers are for America, the country Don José Gamero had despised.

When the American forces return under General MacArthur, the battle for Manila is brutal and the Japanese resistance is fierce. Much of the city is destroyed. For months, their home is strafed by fighters and bombs explode all around. They survive in a homemade bunker.

For two years, Maria and her children are not allowed into the St. Thomas internment camp. They do not know whether their father is alive or dead.

Mary of the Angels tells a story America needs to remember. A story that shows how determination, love and faith can overcome any obstacle.

The book is also a testimony to how technology is changing personal family chronicles. With on-demand publishing, any person with the perseverance and dedication of Dr. Mary Jane Hodges Vance can pass their family legacy down to grandchildren yet unborn.

The book includes scanned images of marriage certificates, letters, newspaper clippings, obituaries, etc., reinforcing the ‘ring of truth’ which pervades the story.

With the exception of Bobby, the oldest son enlisted in the Navy, the entire family survives the Japanese occupation, and anyone who reads the book can see beyond a shadow of a doubt that, true to her name, Mary really did have angels watching over her.

Luke Montgomery, author of A Deceit To Die For, lived in the Middle East for over a decade. He holds an MA in Linguistics, speaks fluent Turkish and writes on foreign policy, religion and culture. You can follow his work at www.lukemontgomery.net, or find him on Twitter at @LookingFor_Luke and on Facebook.

DALLAS November 14, 2012 – Today, a speech by a graying old man in the House of Representatives heralded the end of an era. It was quintessential Paul, long on liberty and short on government, hence the nickname “Dr. No”.

It is a fitting title that he bears with honor for the simple reason that it's not the sort of title one earns by compromising on principle or the constitution. Ron Paul believed that a vote for almost any law put before the House was a vote against freedom, so his vote was generally “No.” Quietly, with conviction, he bucked the two-party system his entire life.

His conviction was that law, especially federal law, is the greatest threat to our liberty. It would be hard to argue otherwise.

After all, law is either restraint or compulsion. It restricts freedom and an overabundance of law is, by definition, the erosion of liberty. What's worse is a situation where the law is “for sale” in the form of legislators and government officials. It is the death of the long revered principle known as “the rule of law” reducing this vital principle to meaningless language buried in legal texts. That is where we find ourselves today.

According to Dr. Paul, “The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year.  When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.”

Indeed, when new laws and regulations are passed at the frightening rate of thousands per year and old laws are scrapped because another party has come to power, how can anyone seriously talk about the “rule of law” if the rules are always changing?

His speech today made it clear that we live by the golden rule of tyranny - the man with the gold makes the rules.

“This neglect [of liberty and free markets] ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to be left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.”

Simply put government has become a trough to slop the pigs with while the “farmer” politicians milk the populace of the fruits of their productive pursuits.

Dr. Paul called for an intellectual awakening. “If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism and warfarism caused our crisis, we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties.”

Dr. Paul said that the crisis we face cannot be solved if we do not understand the underlying causes. Those in power will continue to violate moral principle, taking from one group and giving to themselves and their friends, and they will do so legally, by passing laws.

On the floor of the House, Dr. Paul asked his fellow members a long list of questions about the laws they had passed. He was clearly highlighting the compromised nature of American legislators. Here is a very short version of the list:

• Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
• Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
• Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
• Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American travelling by air?
• Why did the big banks, the large corporations and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
• Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a kill list, including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
  
  

One of the fundamental themes in Dr. Paul's final address was the use of force. He said, “The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government-initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned – or especially when well-intentioned – the results are dismal.”

It may be government force used to invade foreign countries, or regulate economic activity (e.g. the massive US tax code, legal tender laws or business regulations), or constrain personal liberty and habits. He said that only a criminal mind could imagine it was permissible to enter someone else’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, drink and smoke, or how to spend the fruits of their labor.

It must have taken some courage to make this address to a “House-full” of legislators guilty of these very same infractions, exhibiting tendencies to the very same "criminal mind set."

He reminded the House of Representatives that government does not have a monopoly on the use of force. Even though there is now an “army of armed bureaucrats” in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc., the fact that citizens are “guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts” and the government’s arbitrary and immoral use of force will eventually be used as a justification for individuals to do the same.

He noted that government overreach will eventually result in violent pushback not all that different from the conflict experienced in the Revolutionary War against England. The amazing number of people signing petitions of secession after the election seems to indicate the US might be approaching a “civility cliff”.

Paul ended his speech by placing the blame right where it belongs - on us, the people. "Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.”

According to Paul, the current crisis is, in a nutshell, a crisis of morality, for we have become a nation that winks at sin, whether it is theft (through taxation), or gluttony (consumption that outpaces our production). He referred to the impending collapse of the US economy due to excessive debt, an entitlement philosophy and eroding civil liberties.

His tone was not optimistic. In a thinly-veiled reference to one of the primary debates when he was booed for suggesting that the US treat other countries with dignity, not violate their sovereignty, and avoid the use of sanctions, he said, "A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.” 

At one point, he also said, “I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.” This was an indictment of the "sheeple" mentality that has caused the current state of affairs.

Yet, he held out hope that the new generation would reject authoritarianism and embrace freedom. He said that homeschooling and the internet would be crucial tools in overcoming the deceptive federal government's monopoly on education and information, that productivity and creativity were the basis of personal satisfaction and that peace was the path to prosperity.

Dr. Paul's tireless defense of liberty in the halls of the American empire has come to an end, and today his concern was that the Republic itself was in danger. Today, freedom lost its outspoken and courageous ally in the House of Representatives. Today is, in a very real sense, the end of an era. What the next one will look like depends entirely on whether or not Americans heed the warnings he issued today. The only way to prevent the rise of more authoritarian and bellicose government overreach is to #withdrawconsent and put more men of principle in Washington D.C.

The final presidential debate will almost certainly be more interesting than the mad scramble witnessed last week between Romney and Obama as they jousted for preeminence on the same ol’ tired US foreign policy positions. And no, that's not a typo. The last presidential debate will be between Libertarian Gary Johnson and Jill Stein from the Green Party on November 5th. Few will be watching and more’s the pity. As long as it doesn’t degenerate into a marijuana love-fest, any discussion there of foreign policy will almost certainly be more interesting than the one which took place last night since the “foreign policy” of both Romney and Obama seems to be significantly shaped by “jobs in America”, and “nation-building at home”.

First of all, domestic issues are, well, closer to home and should rightly be the focus of any leader's policy, which is why the first two debates were devoted to domestic policy. The polls must have told the candidates' handlers that Americans weren't that interested in foreign affairs or that America is the world and everyone else could roast in Hades because at every opportunity the two candidates turned the focus back to domestic policy.

President Obama said more than once that instead of more foreign military intervention we needed to be doing some "nation-building right here at home". This is, of course, exactly the thing Republicans have been complaining about all along. They don't like his architect, his blueprints or his contractors. Still, the comment no doubt resonated with the millions of Americans looking for work.  

Governor Romney would not be out-done. He too constantly brought up domestic issues throughout this foreign policy debate. If this had been 1992, his campaign slogan would have been, “It's the economy, stupid.”

But that jab is already, er, stained with Democratishness, so he was left with “I know how to get this country working again.”

President Obama was clearly bettered prepared for this debate than the previous two. Voters around the country agreed. President Obama was the clear winner in post-debate polls. One is tempted to wonder if four years of intelligence briefings might be an unfair advantage for any sitting president, but it is what it is.

And what it was was a race to claim the coveted “champion of freedom” titles up for grabs in this coliseum we call planet Earth.

Prince of Peace

Governor Romney’s began the night talking about the importance of peace as a cornerstone of foreign policy. He said, “We can’t kill our way out of this mess.” It sounded like the beginnings of a Republican paradigm shift. For a moment, he seemed wiser, his shoulders dropped, he looked older, frailer, with gray hair and a slight Texas accent. The apparition passed, and neocons breathed a sigh of relief as he promised to “kill the bad guys” and spend more money on the military.  

President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace prize in 2009, seemed to feel like he was a shoo-in for this one as he hardly contested it. Besides, the American people love a winner, i.e. a fighter. Doves can’t scare up enough votes and he had the capture and elimination of Bin Laden in his ledger. It was not the time to go dovish.

What both candidates alluded to on more than one occasion was support for "democracy". Democracy? It was "democracy" that brought Hamas to power in Gaza, "democracy" that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt. Democracy is such a buzzword we forget that it can also mean “mob rule”. Without a culture that understands basic human rights and the rule of law, democracy may be nothing more than popular dictatorship.

President Obama did touch on these issues briefly, but that was where the discussion should have centered. How does the US intend to support the oppressed peoples of the Middle East?

Governor Romney almost got there. “America has to stand on its principles,” he said. Informed observers might have wanted him and the President to explain how American principles allowed us to support regime change and the Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Syria, all relatively secular, while remaining mysteriously silent about protests in other Arab countries, for example Bahrain, where a Shiite majority is ruled by a Sunni monarchy. These protests were eventually squashed with occupying Saudi forces.

Where was our commitment to freedom and democracy then?

King of the Mountain

If you missed the debate and are wondering which mountain, the answer is simple. Mount Zion. Both of the candidates were in a verbal shoving match desperate to knock their opponent off of “The Hill of Zion.” A tweet from Kathryn Delong said, “The winner of this debate is Israel.”

The atrocities of WWII have profoundly shaped the American psyche, so much so that support for Israel has become one of the few policies both parties fervently espouse. However, Israel is only safer if the Middle East is less radical. America's policies have clearly failed to achieve this, and this debate did not include a discussion about why.

The vitriolic rhetoric from Saudi and Egyptian mosques was never addressed, nor was Saudi funding of terrorist groups like Hamas, or foreign aid from the US to Israel’s enemies, or the deteriorating relationship between Israel and Turkey, or the growing power of the Muslim Brotherhood in the aftermath of the Arab Spring.   

Goliath-Slayer

What the American voter heard instead was, “We've got Israel's back.” It became clear as the debate went on what both candidates meant. It means America opposes a nuclear Iran.

Governor Romney tried to find an opening, an advantage on this issue and thereby clinch the “Goliath-slayer” title. On more than one occasion he said, “We are four years closer to a nuclear Iran.”

We are also four years closer to the next Ice Age and California dropping off into the ocean, neither of which sounds horrible to those of us who have just come out of another blistering Texas summer. But, like all dire predictions, such as global warming, Ice Ages, the disappearance of Hollywood, and the end of sugary drinks, reality often turns out to be far less scary than predicted.

Even if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, the US, Israel, and its allies have thousands and the Iranians know this. If mutually assured destruction (MAD) kept crazies like Khrushchev from using nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and still holds a tight rein on the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and the lunatic of Pyongyang, it might work with Iran too. That was not part of the debate. Why?

The Iran-is-four-years-closer-to-a-nuclear-weapon claim was simply posturing. Governor Romney made it clear that a military strike was the last option, that diplomacy had to be tried first and that the best course was “crippling sanctions,” which of course moved him down a notch in the running for the Prince of Peace title.

President Obama lost no time in pointing out that Governor Romney’s position on this and many other issues were essentially identical to those his administration had been following. Romney’s response was that he would have moved more quickly. Paraphrase - I’m the hare you’re the tortoise?

Both candidates vowed to end the Afghan war though the President clearly had the advantage and pressed it, referring to Romney's changing positions on both Iraq and Afghanistan. Fundamentally, however, their positions were, once again, the same.

The issue that was not brought up in the debate was how a tiny, relatively powerless group of Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters had succeeded in drawing America, the world’s only super power, into the longest war in American history.

The answer is simple and has nothing to do with Afghanistan. It’s all about Iran. The world’s super power has been sitting on Iran's border for over ten years and for much of this time Iran was sandwiched between American forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s all about the Goliath-Slayer title and both sides want it!

Romney then advocated for more military spending and intimated that our military was in a historically vulnerable position (fewest number of ships in Navy since 1916, weakest Air Force since 1947). He clearly needs a new fact checker as this left him wide open for the most poignant moment of the evening.

President Obama said, “We also have fewer horse and bayonets.” Though lost on most neocons, the President was right. We are the Death Star on planet Earth. Everybody but the neocons seems to know this. Not only has Obama increased military spending every year, but he pointed out that the United States spends more than the next 10 largest military forces in the world combined. (Emphasis mostly his).

Swords into Plowshares

Though neither candidate would have used such dovish language, probably for fear of turning off Bible-toting voters (I love irony), there was an underlying theme in the debate. America needs to start producing something other than war. We need to structure an economy that puts Americans to work.

This is what most voters care about. Romney and the President know this. But it’s time for the leaders of the free world to implement this common sense strategy. It's time to end the pursuit of Empire, let the rest of the world take a bit more responsibility and start beating some of our swords into plowshares.


Read more: Swords or plowshares - the "domestic" foreign policy debate | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Luke had the pleasure of an interview with Turkish news agency ANKA last week and it ran today in Milliyet. It is only available in Turkish but for those of you fortunate enough to speak this beautiful language, we invite you to enjoy the exchange here.