Friday, June 17, 2011

2011: The Year of Tumults

An interesting article from about natural disasters. This follows this post about U.S. leadership.   For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

2011: The Year of Tumults

A commentary by Howard Davis

Massive natural, environmental and economic disasters have defined the first half of 2011. Bible prophecy identifies events like these as one of the identifying signs of the end times. Where will all these things lead?

Source: Photos.comJesus Christ predicted "earthquakes in various places" before His return to earth to set up the Kingdom of God. The Greek word translated "earthquakes" in the original language means "tumults," which can refer to any kind of environmental or human disaster.

So far 2011 has been a year of gargantuan natural tumults that have devastated broad areas of the world's greatest, most advanced nations and caused enormous global economic impact. In a virtually continuous explosion, today's headlines push out the headlines of last month's disasters before the full story is in on any one of them.

Massive flooding in Oceania

January's torrential rains and floods throughout the southern hemisphere inundated so much of Australia that government officials quickly acknowledged it as the greatest natural disaster in the nation's history. Queensland alone had floods the size of South Africa, with preliminary estimates of $10 billion in losses. That was without counting the impact on the enormous coal and coking operations, 90 percent of which were disrupted, and accounted for most of the immediate 20 percent rise in world coke prices. Coke is essential for manufacturing iron and steel products. Australia is the world's leading coal exporter.

As the floods spread south to New South Wales and Victoria provinces, the total area flooded was the combined size of Germany and France. The flood destroyed major parts of Brisbane, a metropolis much larger than New Orleans with scenes of devastation similar to Hurricane Katrina.

Simultaneously, 5,000 miles to the west, rains rampaged much of Sri Lanka's countryside, wiping out 21 percent of the rice crop. The same week, flash floods killed 626 in Brazil.

2011 defined by earthquakes

New Zealand's February earthquake flattened much of Christchurch, center of the region's population of 500,000. New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key observed, "We may be witnessing New Zealand's darkest day."

Japan's March 11th earthquake was the greatest in Japan's history and one of the greatest recorded in world history. The 24,000 death toll would have been much greater were it not for that nation's amazing social cohesion, high building standards, preparedness and ability to contain the ongoing nuclear disaster. But the 30-foot tsunami rolling over the coastal landscape is being followed by a tsunami of economic consequences for Japan and potential worldwide economic disruption.

Like a tsunami watch, analysts and central bankers are surveying the tides of capital flows, watching to see if the shock suddenly surfaces like a tsunami in capital markets in New York, London and the interconnected web of the global system of capital markets. Japan's earthquake disaster is far from over.

North America not excluded from disaster

April's outburst of tornadoes in the American South and Midwest is the most devastating in American history. In fact, the recent volume of tornado activity defies explanation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the official weather service of the United States and the most sophisticated on the planet. This April's total of more than 600 tornadoes far exceeds the monthly average of 125. On April 25th, there were 305 tornadoes in 24 hours, resulting in yet uncounted billions of dollars in damage and an estimated 100 deaths

The NOAA website states: "It should be noted, due to the extreme nature of the tornado activity this month, that it will take several months for the count of tornadoes and tornado-related fatalities/injuries to be finalized. Numbers reported here will likely change in the coming months. A special report on all of the extreme weather and climate conditions of April 2011 will be released by early summer 2011.''

The insurance industry is likely to sustain billions in losses from the disaster. But even this is only the beginning of economic impacts on the United States. As part of the weird North American weather pattern, excessive rainfall combined with continent wide snow melt has led to flooding in the vast Mississippi River system similar to Australia's in January, flooding millions of acres of prime cropland just as planting of essential grains was to be completed.

And most recently a massive tornado swept through the city of Joplin, Missouri, killing over 100 people and causing massive damage. While Joplin is no stranger to tornados, the size and ferocity of this one was both unusual and horrifying.

Where does this all end? This may only be the storm before an even bigger storm of geopolitics in the Middle East and Europe. The unprecedented scale of these natural disasters certainly constitutes "tumults" as Jesus predicted.

Throughout these events, millions have prayed daily for relief, bringing meaning to the words of Christ to His followers: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Before

Hugo Chavez's New Power Grab

A very interesting post from about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez consolidating his power. This follows this post about China's inroads into Iran and the rest of the Middle East. This follows this article about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence and prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran   and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Hugo Chavez's New Power Grab

Like the canary in a mine shaft who dies at the first sign of toxic gasses, journalists are often the first creatures to suffer when a totalitarian dictator is ascending to power. There are few developed nations in the world that show the methodical approach to smothering free speech, but Venezuela's "great leader" is demonstrating the process in our very own hemisphere. Since other leftist heads of state are watching with dreamy eyes, it might be a good preventative measure if we all start paying attention to his techniques.

Signaling darker days ahead for that county's free press, Venezuela fell from 124th to 133rd out of 178 countries in the 2010 version of the Press Freedom Index ( ). In 2008, they were ranked in 113th place and they held 77th place as recently as in 2002. That was early in the Chávez reign, but he has grown with the job. To prevent any misunderstanding, I should clarify the Press Freedom Index ranking system: Just like a golf score, the higher number is normally considered bad for elected leaders . . . but they work pretty well for dictators fostering a climate of fear among their people.

And "fearful" is an accurate description of conditions in Venezuela after their government announced last week that they have used taxpayer funds to purchase a 20 per cent ownership stake in Globovisión and are on their way to gaining even more control. Reporters Without Borders calls Globovisión the only remaining over-the-air TV channel in Venezuela still critical of President Hugo Chávez. The network has long been under attack since showing support for the losing side during an April 2002 coup attempt against Chávez. Just last July, Diosdado Cabello, head of the Venezuelan Communications Authority (Conatel), said the state was planning to obtain "administration" of 50% of the channel's license, after one of the Globovisión franchise holders died.

Adding to the grave concerns of Venezuelan journalists and international observers, the Venezuelan National Assembly granted another "enabling law" (this one for 18 months) to President Chávez. The extraordinary powers, normally reserved for emergency conditions, will allow him to bypass the legislative process and rule by absolute decree. Not letting a good crisis go to waste, the declared "urgency" this time around comes after several days of rain brought heavy flooding, 35 dead, and more than 100,000 homeless.

"There's no time to lose, not a second," he said in a speech broadcast on state-controlled media.

The last time Chávez ruled by "enabling law," he used his unchecked power to seize control of privately run oil fields, impose new taxes and nationalize telecommunications, electricity and cement companies.

His political opponents see this move as a grab for power before his party's super-majority erodes in the National Assembly in early January. Julio Borges, head of the opposition party, noted that President Chávez will no longer have the ability to gain enabling law when the new legislators are sworn into office; but the new law enables Chávez to rule without input from the National Assembly.

"The President is desperate to pass socialist laws and boost control over the media and internet," Borges said in an email statement. "He says he's giving more power to the people, but he's really exerting more power over the people."

Several news sources report that Chávez did not specify what decrees he was considering but said they would cover rural and urban land, plus (and most ominously) the constitution. Adding to the climate of fear, he is using a familiar tactic: He is waiting until people are distracted by Christmas holiday festivities to announce his next moves.

"There are a series of laws that I want to decree on the 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th of December right in the middle of Christmas . . . and the New Year," he told Reuters. And so he did.

Among other items on the agenda of Chávez and the National Assembly is a proposal to regulate internet service providers and electronic media, according to the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. The law would create a single point of internet access in Venezuela and would also give their government complete control of all internet content by levying heavy fines to punish any internet service provider allowing "prohibited" messages.

Several media and citizen groups have warned that the bill threatens freedom of expression and is an attempt by the government to police text messages, social networks, and email, the website reports. His critics say that President Chávez is looking to implement "censorship mechanisms" by developing "new legal tools" to silence any media organizations that are critical of his administration. ( )

The tragic lesson to learn from all of the emergency measures being taken by Chávez is that he is showing the entire world exactly how any power-hungry leader can achieve totalitarian control. There are countless other nations which have observed this process in a more personal way, but only a few of them were ever this similar (in terms of economic and social development) to the United States.

While North Korea and Cuba are already hopelessly isolated from any outside opinion or wisdom, and numerous African nations suffer these dark forces with little Western attention, the insulated observer might feel that such control would be unobtainable in a nation as developed as was Venezuela before Chávez came to power. Their economy is now rated 172 out of 183 by the World Bank ( )

Because the freedom-loving segments of Venezuela's population continue to speak out, anybody not otherwise distracted can now have a front-row seat to the unfolding cautionary tale of how dictators seize power and destroy lives during an era of expanding communication technology. Revisiting the advice of Shakespeare's Dick the butcher, Chávez is teaching the world that killing all the lawyers before beginning a reign of terror is not nearly as effective as suppressing all the journalists.

U.K.: Islamic hate preacher says government wants "to create a docile brand of Islam but it is not going to happen"

A very interesting post from about radical Islam in the U.K. This follows this post about Iran enforcing sharia law.  This follows this post  about Miss USA 2010 and this article about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence and prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran   and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

U.K.: Islamic hate preacher says government wants "to create a docile brand of Islam but it is not going to happen"

And Abu Izzadeen vowed to "confront" Home Secretary Theresa May if she comes to "Muslim areas" to discuss the government's new guidelines on Islamic supremacism and non-integration. An update on this story. "Theresa May's in sights of fanatics," by Dominik Lemanski for the Daily Star, June 12 (thanks to Twostellas):

Islamist fanatic Abu Izzadeen last night vowed to publicly confront Home Secretary Theresa May if she travels to Muslim areas to promote the Government’s counter-terrorism regulations.

The preacher – who has served a jail sentence for inciting hatred and raising funds for terrorism – hit the headlines in 2006 when he heckled then Home Secretary John Reid.

Abu Izzadeen had called for the beheading of any Muslim in the British Army. He was released early.

But days after Mrs May launched a fresh crackdown on home-grown terror, dubbed the Prevent Strategy, Izzadeen promised to challenge her “face to face” as she tries to stop the spread of radical Islam across the UK.

Last night the 35-year-old said: “If they are willing to put these issues on the table and discuss them I am more than ready.

“I am quite sure Theresa May will not come off any better than John Reid.

“And if she thinks I am joking she is wrong.

“Wherever she will be next I will be dressed in white so she will be able to recognise me.

“This is a re-hash of a failed policy.”

Izzadeen’s sidekick Anjem Choudary, 43, former head of banned Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, said: “This is a challenge to our ideology and our religion.

“We will be going from area to area, wherever the Government is going to put more money, and we will radicalise the youth before the Government gets there.

“There are many institutions and mosques on the Government’s payroll. This is blood money.

“They want to create a docile brand of Islam but it is not going to happen.”Posted by Marisol

Another amnesty? New bill HR 2164 hobbles states

An urgent post from about HR 2164 giving amnesty. This follows this post about E-verify being passed in the House and Senate!  This follows this post about congressional redistricting and this follows this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! On a related note, you can read about Miss Kentucky Latina here, an interesting article about Jessica Alba here or another article about Salma Hayek here. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these senators know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2112 elections.

Another amnesty? New bill HR 2164 hobbles states

History is threatening to repeat itself. Twenty-five years ago, Congress passed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act (better known among conservatives as the 1986 illegal-alien amnesty), which gave a path to citizenship to illegal aliens already here in exchange for prohibiting the hiring of illegal workers -- a provision that has been enforced only sporadically. It was a raw deal for conservatives.

On Tuesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced a bill (HR 2164) to require nationwide use of the E-Verify system, which checks a job applicant's citizenship and immigration status, via the Internet, to see if he or she is eligible to work.

While the Smith bill sounds good, in fact, it hobbles immigration enforcement. Negotiated with the pro-amnesty US Chamber of Commerce, the bill would establish a fairly toothless E-Verify requirement while defanging the only government bodies that are serious about enforcing immigration law -- the states.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The Next U.S. Leader - Who Would God Choose?

An interesting article from about U.S. leadership. This follows this post about Russia, China, India, and other Eurasian nations forming an alliance.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Next U.S. Leader - Who Would God Choose?

A commentary by Rex Sexton

What kind of leader would God choose for the United States?

Source: Photos.comSad to say, but the U.S. presidential election of 2012 is already under way. Never mind the fact that the election won't take place for another year and a half, this week several candidates announced they are off and running, while others announced that they will not run this year. Others are keeping the political pundits in suspense. In 1960 the candidates did not announce their intentions or begin running until spring, barely six months prior to the election.

What has caused the change? In part, it is money. President Obama has already stated that he needs to raise one billion dollars for a campaign. That's right, one billion dollars will be spent by one candidate to get elected to an office that pays .025 percent of that each year as a salary. It takes a lot of time to raise that kind of money and spend it on advertisements and events.

Voters will be swamped and smothered by advertisements. As most of us know, political advertisements rarely stick to the facts and often contain malicious half-truths, false accusations or slander of some kind. What is obvious is that we are dealing with the same problems year after year. Few problems ever seem to get solved. Men know how to talk about problems, but lack the courage and integrity to solve them. The solution often is to spend more money with good intentions and dubious results, but western nations are running out of money. Nearly sixty percent of the U.S. population is living off of a government check of some kind, and the percentage that does not pay income taxes is almost larger than those who do. A study of the history of nations reveals that financial collapse follows moral collapse, which we have witnessed for many years.

What kind of leader would God choose for us if we were a righteous nation? The answer is given by Jethro, Moses' father in law, in Exodus 18. Moses could not handle all of the decisions brought to him, so Jethro counseled him to appoint captains of 10, 50, 100 and 1,000 families. Israel had its first formal organization: "Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" (Exodus:18:21Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:).

Notice that these men were to have four qualities: 1. Men of ability, 2. Fearing God, 3. Men of truth and 4. Hating bribery or unjust gain. Would it not be wonderful if we had such men governing nations today! Instead, in all too many cases our systems bring out the venal, narcissistic, proud, ambitious, dishonest, godless, bribe-giving and taking, arrogant and self-centered types. Character matters, always. God said so.

There are still many genuine servants of our nation and others in positions of governance, but they appear to be in the minority and becoming fewer all the time. Just as it was in Ancient Rome, so it is with us today. Rome lasted over 300 years after the moral decay had set in as reflected in its leaders. Due to modern communication our decline has accelerated much faster and our end result will be here before many people realize what is taking place.

For more on this subject about choosing leaders, and for some startling answers, watch our video program titled: "Could Jesus Be Elected President?"or read the Good News magazine article, "Could Jesus Christ Be Elected President?".


Iran, Nukes, and China's Inroads to the Middle East: What's Next Mr. President?

A very interesting post from about China's inroads into Iran and the rest of the Middle East. This follows this post about Russian-Ukrainian relations. This follows this article about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence and prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran   and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Iran, Nukes, and China's Inroads to the Middle East: What's Next Mr. President?

By Reza Kahlili

With the Middle East in an uproar, the roles being played by Iran and China are of utmost importance to our national security, economy, and global stability. It is imperative that Americans grasp the significance of this.

President Obama's simple approach to dealing with the Iranian nuclear bomb program was to extend a hand toward the radical mullahs ruling Iran hoping to appease them. Clearly, he thought an apology for what America stands for would motivate the Iranian leaders to change their behavior and find a resolution that would solve our differences. He turned his back on millions of Iranians who took to the streets in protest, legitimizing this very barbaric regime -- a regime that has raped, tortured, and executed tens of thousands of brave Iranians and deprived them of their aspirations for freedom and democracy.

The Iranians instead, once again, outmaneuvered and deceived the Obama administration by promising cooperation. Instead, they bought time to continue their nuclear enrichment to where they now have over 8000 pounds of enriched uranium -- enough for three nuclear bombs.

Today it is quite clear that President Obama's policies vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear program have failed. The negotiations have not worked and the sanctions have proven to be a dismal disaster.

As a result of Obama's obvious weakness, many countries such as Germany, India, Venezuela, China, and others are openly collaborating with the regime by providing backdoor financial channels, arms, and even nuclear material.

The Iranian leaders have detected total confusion, weakness, and incompetence from the White House and have picked up their activities. Iranian agents, who have long infiltrated the region, are helping to incite uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and other countries in the Middle East. As I revealed recently, there is a secret documentary, "The Coming is Upon Us," which will be distributed shortly in the Middle East among the Muslim population, that is calling for the unification of Arabs, the overthrow of U.S.-backed governments, and promising the destruction of Israel and the demise of the U.S.

Just in the last couple of months, many shipments of arms and explosives have been confiscated by authorities in Turkey, Israel, and others destined for Syria, Hezb'allah, Hamas, Taliban, and North Africa. Also several ships containing nuclear material destined for Iran have been confiscated in South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia, where two containers were confiscated carrying material used for weapons of mass destruction and nuclear armaments. Interestingly, the parts were labeled as boiler parts and loaded in those containers at a port in China!

China, also sensing the weakness of the Obama administration, is helping Iran with its nuclear program exactly as they did with Pakistan with their nuclear bomb. Pakistan recently announced that with the help of China, they were building more nuclear plants, making them the fourth largest nuclear state by the end of this decade.

Reports indicate that the Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov has warned that the recent China and Pakistan strategic agreements are a signal to China's ambitions regarding the vital energy resources of the Middle East. This new strategic agreement between the two allows China access to the Karakoram Highway and therefore its reach to the Arabian Sea. Other reports indicate that even Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf countries have turned to China because of Obama's apparent confusion in dealing with the current crisis in the Middle East.

While China and Iran share a common goal, which is the demise of America's supremacy in the region, they differ on the outcome. China believes, for the first time in a long time, it has been provided a grand opportunity to access the Middle East, secure its energy source, and become the next superpower of the world.

However, the Iranian leaders, who say the destruction of America and the West is at hand, are quite excited about the recent events in the Middle East and believe that the overthrow of U.S.-backed governments are just around the corner. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated just days ago: "Expect more events in the region soon," and on the nuclear issue he went on to say, "And now, after eight years of pressure, the Islamic Iran has won out."

The Iranian leaders today, more than any time in the past, believe that the conditions are prime for the End of Times as predicted in the centuries-old Hadith; that the last Messiah, the Shiites' 12th Imam, Imam Mahdi, will return as promised opening the way for Islam's conquest throughout the world. But, they also fervently believe that in order for that to happen, Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth.

It is quite clear that we live in very dangerous times and unless and until our leaders grasp the reality of the events taking place in the Middle East and the world, U.S. supremacy and superiority will be lost for decades to come, perhaps never to recover. Millions of lives could be lost and the world could suffer destruction and depression worse than anything in recent memory!

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. He is the author of A Time to Betray, a book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran's Revolutionary Guards, published by Threshold Editions, Simon & Schuster.

Summer in Iran: 70,000 agents enforce restrictions on "un-Islamic" attire in "moral security plan"

A very interesting post from about Iran enforcing sharia law. This follows this post about Islam in the United States covered during this week's GOP debates. This follows this post  about Miss USA 2010 and this article about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence and prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran   and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Summer in Iran: 70,000 agents enforce restrictions on "un-Islamic" attire in "moral security plan"

Sharia is where "government knows best" meets "Allah knows best," and the result is a state that feels entitled to mind your business in all manner of ways. After all, limitations on the government's authority become tantamount to limitations on Allah's authority.

For a Sharia regime, measures like this are an easier way to look productive than tackling more consequential social and economic problems. Then again, the stock answer for both issues would likely also be "more Sharia" -- followed by arguing for the need for it on the most minute level, and initiatives such as this. It's a win-win for lazy, unaccountable government. "Necklace ban for men as Tehran's 'moral police' enforce dress code," by Saeed Kamali Dehghan for the Guardian, June 14:

Iranian men have been banned from wearing necklaces in the latest crackdown by the Islamic regime on "un-Islamic" clothing and haircuts.

Thousands of special forces have been deployed in Tehran's streets, participating in the regime's "moral security plan" in which loose-fitting headscarves, tight overcoats and shortened trousers that expose skin will not be tolerated for women, while men are warned against glamorous hairstyles and wearing a necklace.

The new plan comes shortly after the Iranian parliament proposed a bill to criminalise dog ownership, on the grounds that it "poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the west".

The Irna state news agency said the trend was aimed at combating "the western cultural invasion" with help from more than 70,000 trained forces, known as "moral police", who are sent out to the streets in the capital and other cities.

With the summer heat sweeping across the country, many people, especially the young, push the boundaries and run the risk of being fined, or even arrested, for wearing "bad hijab" clothing.

Women in particular are under more pressure because of the restriction on them to cover themselves from head to toe. Men are allowed to wear short-sleeved shirts, but not shorts.

"The enforcement of the moral security plan was requested by the nation and it will be continued until people's concerns are properly addressed," said Ahmadreza Radan, the deputy commander of the Iranian police.

Iran's moral police usually function under a body whose head is appointed directly by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In a live television programme last year, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he did not approve of the crackdown.

Speaking by phone, a Tehran resident, who asked to remain anonymous, said: "It's not only about clamping down on clothing, but they are spreading panic and fear by sending out this much of police into the streets under the name of this plan, to control the society. It's unbelievable to see a regime that is not only concerned about its own survival but it goes into your personal life and interferes in that."

Under Islamic customs, dogs are deemed to be "unclean". Iranians, in general, avoid keeping them at home, but still a minority, especially in north Tehran's upper-class districts, enjoy keeping pets. Last year Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, a prominent hardline cleric, issued a fatwa against keeping dogs and said the trend must stop.

Last summer authorities in Tehran also released a list of approved hairstyles in an attempt to offer Islamic substitutes to "decadent" western cuts, such as the ponytail and the mullet.

"Sir, I may disagree with your choice to wear a mullet, but I will defend your right to wear one."

Posted by Marisol

Free faxes to push Senate & House E-Verify bills -- we're on a roll‏

An urgent post from about E-verify being passed in the House and Senate! This follows this post about the GOP presidential debate on Monday. This follows this post about immigration enforcememt being blocked in North CarolinaThis follows this post about congressional redistricting and this follows this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! On a related note, you can read about Miss Kentucky Latina here, an interesting article about Jessica Alba here or another article about Salma Hayek here. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these senators know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2112 elections.

Free faxes to push Senate & House E-Verify bills -- we're on a roll‏

From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA




Over In U.S. House, Hearing Moves Chairman's E-Verify Bill Forward -- Send Free Fax Asking Your Rep. To Co-Sponsor

Open-borders leaders in Congress this morning were in a panic saying they fear that a national mandatory E-Verify bill will become law this year.

Perhaps it was the sight of so much business lobby support for E-Verify at a hearing of the House immigration subcommittee. Yes, law-abiding businesses were begging Congress to force their competitors to stop hiring cheap foreign labor and having taxpayers subsidize them. (National Restaurant Association and National Association of Homebuilders, plus a letter of support from U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- all of these endorsing mandatory national E-Verify!)

ACTION: Please go to your Action Board now and send free faxes asking your U.S. Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 2164 (the Legal Workforce Act introduced yesterday by Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee).

And you'll also find faxes to send to your Senators asking them to co-sponsor another bill introduced yesterday by Sen. Grassley of Iowa (S. 1196) which would even more vigorously force the hiring of American workers over illegal foreign ones.


Until this moment, it has been difficult to really hold the new Senate accountable on illegal immigration because there hasn't been a mandatory E-Verify bill to insist that they co-sponsor.

Now, you can truly know who stands with illegal workers and the outlaw businesses that hire them and who stands with U.S. workers and the law-abiding businesses.

Perhaps most interesting is that the freshman Senator from Florida, Marco Rubbio, who is being so closely watched because he is Hispanic is one of the original co-sponsors on Grassley's bill, which is probably the toughest workplace enforcement bill ever introduced.

Also already signed onto the bill are both Senators from Utah (Lee and Hatch) where the legislature passed its own amnesty bill for illegal aliens. Utah citizens apparently think illegal workers should leave rather than stay, based on what the U.S. Senators seem to know about them.

The full list of original Republican signers of the Grassley bill are:

BOOZMAN of Arkansas

COBURN of Oklahoma

CORKER of Tennessee


HATCH of Utah

LEE of Utah

RUBIO of Florida

SESSIONS of Alabama

VITTER of Louisiana

WICKER of Mississippi

Thanks for helping grow that list.


Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona's mandatory E-Verify law, we at NumbersUSA have heard a modest but steady stream of comments from people questioning if it wouldn't be better to skip having a national E-Verify law and stick with state laws to push illegal aliens out of U.S. jobs.

Certainly, we have to acknowledge that we would not right now have the possibility of a national E-Verify law passing if it weren't for the valiant efforts of many state legislators across the nation who -- often with the help of attorney, and now Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach -- fought tirelessly and tenaciously for years to pass E-Verify laws in states while Congress fiddled.

But the goal has always been to use state efforts to force Congress to act nationally.

After all, does anybody believe that the state governments in California, Illinois, New York and a number of other virtual sanctuary states will ever require E-Verify? The only hope for people in those states (which not coincidentally have the largest populations of illegal aliens) is a national law.

H.R. 2164 will be the primary legislative vehicle for change because it has been introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which handles immigration and because his Party is in power in the House.

The Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 2164) is not a perfect bill for us because it has been negotiated to make a few concessions to obtain the support of national business lobbies (rather than their using their considerable resources to try to defeat mandatory E-Verify as they have always done in the past).

But H.R. 2164 offers much to celebrate.


99% of all hirings for U.S. jobs of any kind would have to be run through E-Verify within 2 years.

(Only 6 states come close to this requirement.)

(44 states don't require E-Verify for any private employers of any size unless they have government contracts.)

After 2 years, even employers of just ONE worker will have to use E-Verify, getting at the day laborers and other parts of the underground economy.

(Only 4 states have laws as good as this -- 46 states don't.)

100% of all state, county and city hirings would have to be run through E-Verify within 6 MONTHS.

(Current state laws affect an estimated 30% of state employee hirings nationwide and 12% of local government hirings.)

100% of all hirings by state government private contractors would have to be run through E-Verify within 6 MONTHS.

(That compares with around 25% of all state contractor hirings nationally under current state laws.)

Would make into law the very good executive action that Pres. Obama took in 2009 mandating E-Verify for all federal contractors (added to all federal employees).



States are prohibited by current federal law from requiring employers to deal with illegal aliens who are already on their payroll.

H.R. 2164 brings a huge increase of enforcement into the states by creating two big dragnets to identify and remove illegal aliens from their jobs.

No. 1: Multiple-Workplace Notification -- Going After Identity Thieves

(No state has a law that goes after illegal aliens who get jobs by stealing identities.)

E-Verify's biggest weakness is that it fails to catch most illegal aliens who have paid big money to steal identities of U.S. citizens and other legal workers.

This provision in Lamar Smith's bill goes beyond E-Verify to close this loophole and catch perhaps the worst of the illegal workers, while alerting citizens so they can recover their stolen identities.

The bill:

1. requires the Social Security Administration once a year to identify all matching Social Security numbers and names that are being used at multiple workplaces (some are used at dozens and even hundreds of workplaces).

2. creates a system for the real owner of the name and SS number to contact SSA and establish ownership and where that person actually works.

3. requires SSA to notify all employers (other than of the true owner of the name) for a process that will result in the firing of the workers falsely using that name and SS number (although experience suggests that most of those illegal aliens will stop showing up for work once they get the notification letter from SSA).

No. 2: No-Match Notification -- Going After Fictitious Identities

(No state has a law that achieves any comparable effect.)

The bill requires SSA's computers to identify every payroll worker who is using:

(a) a SS number that doesn't exist

(b) a SS number that doesn't match the name in the system

(c) a number that isn't a SS number

(d) other irregularities involving the SS number and information about that worker

After giving those workers a few days to straighten out any errors about them in the system, the employer is required to fire the ones who can't do so (in other words, fire the illegal aliens and also legal visitors who don't have the right to work).

No. 3: Ensuring that Foreign Workers Who Lose Their Right to Work Cannot Continue Working Anyway

(No state has a law that achieves any comparable effect.)

The bill requires SSA to essentially deactivate the SS number of an alien whose visa expires, or who is deported or required to leave the United States, so that number cannot continue to be used to gain employment.

The bill also requires DHS to notify employers of temporary workers when those workers' visas are about to expire, so the employer knows they must re-run those workers through E-Verify if they plan to continue their employment, thus ensuring that those whose work authorization has been extended may continue working, but others will be terminated.


Chairman Smith's bill would impose big increases in penalties for businesses that continue to hire illegal aliens.

(a) up to $25,000 fine per illegal worker

(b) minimum prison sentences of one-year for offending employers

I should tell you that everything great in the details above are even better in the Grassley Senate bill.


Obviously from the above, you can see that most of H.R. 2164 is fantastic.

But when I said Monday that Rep. Smith's bill is the "most important" E-Verify legislation ever, I did not mean that it is the "best ever."

Mr. Smith's bill is "most important" because it has a real chance of getting through House, Senate and the White House and becoming law THIS YEAR. It has a chance because it isn't the "best" and instead involves some compromises to remove some key opposition that could keep it from reaching the finish line.

It is always critical to remember that a perfect bill that does NOT become law helps nobody.

H.R. 2164 does have a couple of significant compromises that were thought to be necessary to turn the extremely powerful business lobbies from aggressive opponents into supporters of the legislation.

Would the country be better off with this "compromise" national legislation or with having no national legislation and continue to rely solely on state laws?

I think the description of the bill's attributes above suggest a resounding reason to support H.R. 2164 as the vehicle for the national mandate we have sought since NumbersUSA was founded in 1996.

I discuss the details of the two compromise items in my blog. Go to my blog to get more details on the pros and cons of the bill and to ask further questions. The NumbersUSA staff will try to respond quickly.

The bottom line is that 7 states with the toughest state workplace immigration laws would have some minuses to go with the pluses of H.R. 2164. But 43 states would have immediate and incredibly broad improvements in the reduction of illegal alien workers in their states.


That GOP Debate In New Hampshire: A Pleasant Surprise On Immigration

An urgent post from about the GOP presidential debate on Monday. This follows this post about immigration enforcememt being blocked in North CarolinaThis follows this post about congressional redistricting and this follows this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! On a related note, you can read about Miss Kentucky Latina here, an interesting article about Jessica Alba here or another article about Salma Hayek here. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these senators know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2112 elections.

That GOP Debate In New Hampshire: A Pleasant Surprise On Immigration

By Peter Brimelow

Rob Sanchez has a powerful post this morning about Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Chamber of Commerce-compliant immigration policy, but I am astonished to say I don't really agree with Rob's dismissal of the immigration component in last night's GOP presidential debate as "superficial".

The transcript is here (I'm excerpting the relevant portion here); a YouTube excerpt is here.

Of course, it's scandalous and stupid that none of the candidates called for 1) an anti-unemployment immigration moratorium; 2) a comprehensive anti-illegal immigration policy comprising a) a sealed border to stop the illegal flow b) elimination of the illegal stock by increased deportation, attrition through enforcement, overthrow of Plyler v. Doe, abolition of birthright citizenship etc.

But short of that, and setting aside all the claptrap about "compassion" and immigrant forebears that American pols seem to feel necessary, the candidates were surprisingly firm—certainly firmer than the moderator, CNN's John King, seemed to want or expect.

This can only be a tribute to the terror inspired in the candidates by New Hampshire's patriotic peasantry—and, we like to think, to the pitchforks that and others in the movement have been stockpiling for them all these years.


Herman Cain endorsed abolition of Birthright Citizenship—he said "I don't believe so" when asked if the "Anchor Baby" loophole should exist.

Cain also endorsed Arizona-style state action to eliminate the illegal stock, as did Pawlenty (!) and Santorum. (I think: he said: "the federal government should not require states to provide government services".)

Santorum also said "We should not be offering to people—particularly those who broke the law to come here or overstayed their visa—we should not be offering government benefits". I presume this was a mis-statement, but on its face it seems to show an awareness that government transfer payments are a problem for legal immigration policy too—in Milton Friedman's famous formulation:

Both Paul and Gingrich contrasted deficient border security with the effort made in Iraq and Iran. As Paul put it: "We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan". That may not seem much—but both were interrupted with applause. Politicians notice applause. Out on the campaign trail, it can end up making policy.

Gingrich and Pawlenty endorsed using the National Guard on the Mexican border; in fact, Pawlenty congratulated himself on sending the Minnesota National Guard.

Ron Paul heroically responded to King’s tendentious question on Emergency Rooms ("A 5-year-old child of an illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room. Does the child get care?") by essentially saying no ("Well, first off, we shouldn't have the mandates. We bankrupted the hospitals and the schools in Texas and other states. We shouldn't give them easy citizenship"). Without prompting, Paul even went on to imply that, despite recent ominous signs, he’s cool on amnesty ("We shouldn't give them easy citizenship")

Gingrich similarly refused to be trapped on amnesty: "No serious citizen who's concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in which you're either for totally selling out protecting America or you're for totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way. There are—there are humane, practical steps to solve this problem, if we can get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly." This implies awareness of the policy option always omitted in immigration enthusiast pollaganda: attrition through enforcement.

Pawlenty even showed awareness that anchor-baby Birthright Citizenship is a judicial interpretation, not a constitutional provision: "That result is because a U.S. Supreme Court determined that that right exists, notwithstanding language in the Constitution." In contrast, four years ago John McCain tried (unsuccessfully) to fool voters into thinking Birthright Citizenship was somehow blessed by the Founding Fathers.

(Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman were not called upon in this exchange, and did not feel impelled to refer to immigration at all. But Romney at least made enough pro-patriot noises to get Tom Tancredo’s endorsement when Tancredo bowed out of the last presidential race. And Beltway immigration patriots have real hopes for Bachman, although they’ve been disappointed before).

Needless to say, all this and a marked ballot paper could get us amnesty, or at least a continuation of America’s post-1965 immigration disaster. But hypocrisy is famously the homage that vice pays to virtue. And this pandering is the obeisance that GOP professionals now feel obliged to pay to patriotism.

Put this in perspective. Note that, in dramatic contrast to the nightmare reign of the disastrous Dubya, nobody even mentioned amnesty.

It’s not perfect, but it’s good.

Click here for relevant portion of debate—key points highlighted. Peter Brimelow (email him) is editor of and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, (Random House - 1995)

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Eurasia SCO Supplants U.S. Dominance

An interesting article from about Russia, China, India, and other Eurasian nations forming an alliance. This follows this post about Lebanon and Syria.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Eurasia SCO Supplants U.S. Dominance

A commentary by Ken Murray

While the United States continues to vie for influence in Central Asia, a multi-state organization of Central and East Asian powers is gaining in prominence in this important region. Does this hold any prophetic significance? What does it mean for the rest of the world?

SCO member and observer states

Source: Wikimedia CommonsJust when many people are lulled into a false complacent sense of security, prophetic world geopolitics is taking a huge transformational step away from United States domination of the world stage!

Most American citizens would be oblivious to what is happening on June 15, 2011, in a city they have probably never heard of: Astana, Kazakhstan. It will have profound impact on the USA.

A power vacuum is being created in Afghanistan, as Washington officials seek to draw down American troop numbers, and their other allies are espousing ways of reducing their troop numbers, without a “panic to the exits,” as reported in the media.

A powerful Eurasian coalition

Meanwhile, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is having its 10th year anniversary meeting at Astana, Kazakhstan, on June 15, 2011, with the express views of stepping into the power vacuum in Afghanistan.

Nicolas J. S. Davies reported on, on June 7, 2011:

“On May 15, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that an important expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will be on the agenda at its upcoming summit in Astana in Kazakhstan on June 15.

“If the expansion is approved, India and Pakistan will join China, Russia and the Central Asian republics as full SCO members, and Afghanistan will join Iran and Mongolia as a new SCO 'observer.'

“The U.S. media seem to have missed this news, but future historians will be unlikely to ignore it as an important turning point in the history of Afghanistan, the United States and the world.

The original Shanghai Five (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan), who met in 1996 to sign a 'Treaty on Deepening Trust in Border Regions,' formed the SCO in 2001 with the addition of Uzbekistan and a commitment to greater cooperation in military and economic affairs.

“In 2005, President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan hailed the historic nature of that year’s SCO summit, the first time that the original members were joined by India, Pakistan and Iran. He noted that half the human race was now represented around the SCO negotiating table” ( at: , emphasis mine throughout).

Davies further adds:

“The United States also applied for 'observer' status in the SCO in 2005, but its application was rejected.

“The Afghans have decided to join the SCO despite longstanding opposition from Washington. Afghan Foreign Minister Rassoul spent four days meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing before Lavrov’s announcement on May 15.

“One thing we can be sure they all agreed on is that they want the United States out of Afghanistan, and the rub for the United States is that the SCO and its member states will be waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces whether we get out this year, next year or in ten years’ time” (ibid).

The rest of the world watches with interest

The implications from this momentous SCO 10th anniversary meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, will also not be lost on a very aware European Union.

As the EU observes a further erosion of U.S. power in Eurasia via the SCO, they will very likely begin stepping up their own military and economic ties within the central major national members of the E.U.

Already, there are signs of a shift to the right in European politics, since the elections in Portugal.

God’s prophet Ezekiel prophesied long ago about the coming end-time empire of Gog and Magog, in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Will this Asian bloc of nations fulfill this prophecy?

A huge empire from the East is prophesied to form an army of 200 million in the end-time and to attack the European Beast power across the Euphrates river (Revelation:9:13-19; Revelation:16:12).

In that devastating initial battle one third of mankind are prophesied to die (Revelation:9:18-19).

It will be at that time that Jesus Christ will intervene and return to this Earth to establish God’s Kingdom on this Earth, before “no flesh might be saved alive” (Matthew:24:22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.; Isaiah:9:6-7[6]For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.[7]Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.).

See other articles about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization from our United Church of God archives at  and


Russian-Ukrainian Relations

A very interesting post from about Russian-Ukrainian relations. This follows this article about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence and prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran   and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Skoropadsky and the Course of Russian-Ukrainian Relations

By Michael Averko

Unity Themes

On pages 285-286 of Oleh S. Fedyshyn's book "Germany's Drive to the East and the Ukrainian Revolution, 1917-1918," (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1971) there is a translation of Pavlo Skoropadsky's November 14, 1918 "Edict Calling for the Formation of an All-Russian Federation," as cited from pages 414-415 of Dmytro Doroshenko's Volume 2 "Istoriya Ukrayiny - History of Ukraine, 1917-1923" (Svoboda, Uzhgorod, 1930).

Skoropadsky's edict is as follows:

We are now confronted with a new political task. The Allies were always friends of the old united Russian State. Today, following a period of turmoil and dissolution, Russia has to adopt new conditions for her future existence. The old might and power of the All-Russian State must be restored on the basis of a different principle - that of federalism. The Ukraine should assume the leading role in this federation, since it was she who gave the example of law and order in the country; it was also within Ukrainian borders that the citizens of the old Russia, oppressed and humiliated by the Bolshevik despotism, found freedom and security. [...] These principles, which I hope are shared by Russia's allies [...] should be the basis for the Ukraine's policy in the future. The Ukraine should thus take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation, the principal goal of which should be the restoration of Great Russia.

The achievements of this task shall guarantee not only the well-being of all of Russia, but the further economic and cultural development of the Ukrainian people as well, on the basis of national and political independence. Being deeply convinced that any other course would result in the Ukraine's collapse, I appeal to all who care about her future - so closely linked to the future and happiness of all of Russia - to unite behind me for the defense of the Ukraine and Russia. [...]

The newly formed cabinet is hereby instructed to proceed immediately with the implementation of this great historical task.

Skoropadsky's edict exhibits the idea of a post-Romanov-governed and non-Soviet alternative for Russian-Ukrainian togetherness, with an emphasis placed on Ukrainian cultural identity and self-governance. From a Soviet perspective, there was the theoretical ideal of national republics in a multinational union. The inclusion of Soviet-era Belarusian and Ukrainian United Nations (UN) delegations, minus the individual U.N. representation of other Soviet republics, was explained by stressing the role that Ukraine and Belarus each played during World War II. This Soviet U.N. representation was a compromise among the key founding U.N. member nations. The Soviet government sought all of its republics represented, but instead, there were only Soviet, Belarusian Soviet, and Ukrainian Soviet U.N. delegations.


Post-Soviet Ukraine's standing as an internationally recognized independent state and the varied Ukrainian attitudes toward Russia are influenced by a lengthy historical process. After several centuries as a unit, Rus (the 9th- to mid-13th-century state, which modern-day Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are descended from) came under a prolonged era of Mongol subjugation. The post-Mongol occupation period of that land saw Rus territories come under different rule. Coupled with that aspect, the relatively large land of Rus was ripe for nurturing different cultural and linguistic attributes, while not completely eliminating a feeling of kinship, dating back to Rus's pre-Mongol subjugated existence. Upon the defeat of the Mongols, the territory making up much of the contemporary European part of Russia emerged as the most independent of foreign domination and strongest of Rus territories. There are signs that Rus was undergoing a shift toward greater influence in the north (away from Kiev) before the Mongol subjugation. At around this time, there was some evidence of regional differences as well.

The rise of Poland and Ottoman Turkey as major powers and their at times tense relationship with the territories constituting Rus served as one reason for bringing together much of the Rus entity into the Russian Empire. Rus's common past provided a further unifying base.

Pavlo Skoropadsky (1873-1945) was born into a family of prominent Cossacks in what is now independent Ukraine. He is related to Ivan Skoropadsky (1646-1722), who opposed Ivan Mazepa's shift of allegiance from Russia to Sweden and Poland. Ivan Skoropadsky was to replace Mazepa as leader of the Russian Empire Ukrainian situated Cossacks.

The different accounts of Mazepa serve to highlight the historical division in the assessment of a number of Ukrainian territory-based issues through the centuries. Some emphasize Mazepa's change of alliance on the premise that Sweden and Poland would be victorious in a war with Russia. Others stress the notion that Mazepa's move was made in opposition to the Cossacks' relationship with the Tsar. The record on this matter reveals that Mazepa's geopolitical shift was not supported by most of the Cossacks or much of the rest of the population in his area.

Between the time of Mazepa's downfall and World War I, the development of a separate Ukrainian national identity gradually gained stature. At the same time, there was a noticeable degree of commonality.

Napoleon's 1812 attack on Russia was actively supported by tens of thousands of Poles in what was (at the time) the latest historical twist to troubled Russian-Polish relations. The degree of Polish activity against Russia was not evident then among the population related to contemporary Ukrainians, who were generally loyal to the Russian Empire's war effort. Another example of this mood is the literary relationship of Nikolai Gogol to Russia and Ukraine. Gogol identified with Russia while expressing pride in the part of the Russian Empire (present-day Ukraine) where he was from. In 2009, both Russia and Ukraine honored Gogol's 200th birthday.

Turning Point

As World War I was drawing to a close, Pavlo Skoropadsky found himself in a unique situation. The initial post-Tsarist Ukrainian government, known as the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR), had ties with the Russian Provisional Government as an affiliate of Russia. (The Ukrainian People's Republic is also referred to as the Ukrainian National Republic.) Faced with a difficult situation in Russia, the Provisional Government was not in a good position to deal with matters in Ukraine. Following the Bolshevik overthrow of the Provisional Government and testy Bolshevik-UPR relations, the UPR declared Ukraine's full independence. With World War I not yet over and Germany in an influential position in Ukraine, the UPR became close to Berlin.

With German support, Skoropadsky overthrew the UPR and proceeded to head a new government supported by Berlin. The impression is given that the Germans turned to Skoropadsky because they felt that the UPR was not governing a society benefiting German war aims. In addition, the monarchical Germany of that period likely felt more at ease with the socioeconomically conservative Skoropadsky when compared to the politically left-of-center UPR. (Alexander Kerensky writes in his memoirs of a German policy seeking deals across the political spectrum in Russia and Ukraine. The Germans gave support to the Bolsheviks, while also considering ties with some conservative Russian anti-Provisional Government and anti-Bolshevik elements.)

During his roughly eight-month period of governance in 1918, Skoropadsky faced criticism and opposition from the Ukrainian political left for favoring a conservative socioeconomic approach. He was also criticized for being too subservient to Germany and for taking authoritarian measures. (On that last particular, a kind of "whataboutism" of sorts contrasts what was evident or became evident in parts of former Russian Empire territory, including Ukraine.) As German power declined, Skoropadsky's stature became more vulnerable. An increasingly tenuous situation in Ukraine served the interests of the political left, who opposed a government viewed as (among other things) conservative and favoring the wealthy.

Problems existed between Skoropadsky's German-supported Ukrainian government and the anti-Bolshevik Whites. The former initially proclaimed a continuation of the UPR's stance on Ukraine as an independent nation. This position suited the geopolitical interests of Germany and the rest of the Central Powers. The breakup of lands making up the Russian Empire decreased the stature of an adversary. In contrast, the Whites favored Russian-Empire Ukrainian territory and Russia as part of the same nation. The Whites (at least most of them) felt obliged to honor the Provisional Government's ties with the Entente against the Central Powers. During World War I, the Entente was not so keen to see the territories of the Russian Empire and its Provisional Government successor broken up. When backed by Germany, Skoropadsky was nevertheless able to attract some pro-White advocates into his government.

Skoropadsky and the UPR government he overthrew shared a similar thought process towards Russia. At different points in time, each stated a willingness to see Russia and Ukraine as one country. A weakened Russia coupled with a strong German presence in Ukraine challenged Russian-Ukrainian togetherness. In addition, there were Ukrainian separatist-leaning tendencies, especially noticeable within the UPR body politic. Simultaneously, a good portion of Ukraine's population was not against some form of a national entity comprising Russia and Ukraine. When the Russian Civil War became concentrated in Ukraine, the warring Whites and Reds found a mix of native support and opposition for their respective causes, as well as individuals who were not enthusiastic about any of the factions in conflict (Reds, Whites, or Ukrainian separatists). Despite their differences, the Reds and Whites each favored Russian-Ukrainian togetherness.

Skoropadsky's November 14, 1918 edict for an All-Russian Federation came shortly after the armistice agreement that led to the end of World War I. Before the end of the year, his government was toppled by Ukrainian forces loyal to separatist/socialist Symon Petliura. (Skoropadsky lived the rest of his life in Germany.) Petliura's support came from many of the individuals associated with the UPR. Towards the end of 1918, the Whites were not yet at their pinnacle of prowess, in a way that made it difficult for them to militarily assist pro-Russian/anti-Bolshevik elements in Ukraine. The following year saw the Russian Civil War move significantly into Ukraine, when the Whites were at their strongest.

After Skoropadsky's government was overthrown by Petliura's forces, the latter faced a series of challenges. It appears that Petliura was unable to successfully mobilize enough of former Russian-Empire Ukrainian territory to oppose his White and Red adversaries, who in turn opposed each other. Muddying things further in Russian Civil War-era Ukraine were the differences between many Galician Ukrainians and Petliura's supporters. Overall, the former were more rural and conservative than the latter.

These circumstances serve to explain Petliura's decision to make an alliance with Poland -- an alliance that included his agreeing to have the majority Ukrainian-inhabited portion of eastern Galicia (which had been part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire) come under the rule of Warsaw. That move motivated the Galician Ukrainians (by and large) to come under the military command of the Whites. Poland was willing to recognize a pro-Polish Ukrainian state comprising former Russian-Empire Ukrainian territory, whereas the Whites viewed that land as being united with Russia, as they tended to view eastern Galicia as foreign territory apart from Poland. Concerning Russian-Polish differences on Ukraine and other Russian Civil War-related issues, George A. Brinkley's The Volunteer Army and Allied Intervention in South Russia, 1917-1921 (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1966) and Dimitry V. Lehovich's White Against Red: The Life of General Anton Denikin (W W Norton & Company, New York City, 1973) have an array of detailed insight based on primary sources.

Two leading Petliura allies, Volodymyr Vynnychenko and Mykhailo Hrushevsky, were to go over to the Soviet side. Before his death in 1934, Hrushevsky fell out of favor with Soviet officialdom. Vynnychenko became disenchanted with the Soviet Union and settled in the West.


When reviewing the Russian Civil War situation in Ukraine, several factors should be considered for clarity's sake. During this period, some national independence movements across the world were more advanced than others, as worldwide imperial possessions remained quite evident. At about that point in history, many Brits came around to acknowledging an independent Ireland without doing the same for other colonies. Yet Russians and Ukrainians, ethnically and linguistically, are more closely related than English and Scots.

The Whites are considered reactionary when compared to their Red counterparts. Note that the Whites supported Finnish and Polish independence, unlike some other independence movements. (The White view on Finnish and Polish independence has been clearly stated and is well-documented in the previously mentioned books by Brinkley and Lehovich.)

The Russian Civil War era suggests a growing separate Ukrainian national identity. Following the Soviet breakup, the 100% international acknowledgement of an independent Ukrainian state saw many Ukrainians revealing an interest in having close ties with Russia. (The post-Soviet polling done on this particular includes a May 25, 2009 Research and Branding Group study and a February 18, 2010 IFAK-Ukraine International Research Agency survey.)

Every post-Soviet Russian government has recognized Ukraine's independence on the basis of the latter's Soviet-drawn boundaries. Among the few in Russia and Ukraine favoring a single Russian-Ukrainian state (along with the possibility of some other former Soviet territories), there seems to be (for the most part) an understanding that such a move should be mutually agreed upon and non-violent.

These facets put into perspective the at times overly hyped perceptions of Russian revanchist thoughts. Russia's response to not being a part of other former Soviet republics is arguably not so relevant, even with some influential analysts prone to negatively portraying closer relations between Russia and Ukraine (and perhaps some other former Soviet lands).

In the foreseeable future, it does not seem so unreasonable to envisage closer Russian-Ukrainian ties, which could very well fall short of a multinational state. The May 6, 2011 Russia Profile Weekly Experts' Panel provides insight on the practicality of that kind of relationship.

Michael Averko is a New York-based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.

Page Printed from:

Gingrich Gets Smacked for Noticing Islam Hostility

A very interesting post from about Islam in the United States. This follows this post about increasing Islamism in Turkey. This follows this post  about Miss USA 2010 and this article about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence and prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran   and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Gingrich Gets Smacked for Noticing Islam Hostility

[Brenda Walker]
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a sovereignty squish and shameless Hispanderer, but has been pretty good on recognizing the national security threat that hostile Muslims represent. His outspokenness on that issue is a welcome difference from liberal fools who think they can kumbaya their way to peaceful relations with the West’s historic enemy.

But out in the big leagues of Presidential politics, no good idea goes unpunished by America’s enemies (varieties of whom reside here in the millions, from the Mexicans of La Raza to the unindicted terror co-conspirators at the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR]).

In Monday’s Republican Presidential debate, Gingrich made the sensible statement that keeping America’s enemies out of the government might be a good idea.

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

We did this — we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

Too bad Newt won’t take the next logical step and recommend ending Muslim immigration, as Geert Wilders has done.

Naturally, the proponents of Planet Sharia from CAIR and their friends in the dinosaur media couldn’t let stand a prudent statement favoring national security.

More than that, the squaws emerging from the liberal MSM show how crazed it has become with its silly multicultural peacenik ideology. When you think diversity is the highest good (as liberalism does these days), then the real world will be full of disappointment.

GOP Debate: Newt Gingrich’s Comparison of Muslims and Nazis Sparks Outrage, ABC News, June 14, 2011

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s comments comparing Muslims to Nazis at the GOP debate Monday night have sparked a firestorm in the blogosphere, where liberals, and even some conservatives, have pounced on the former House speaker for what they view as excessive fear mongering.

“Of course Newt is taking it too far. He is appealing to the basest instincts of a very small minority of folks,” said Matthew Dowd, ABC News consultant who served as chief strategist on George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election team. “Either he is doing this for political purposes to distract people from a campaign in disarray, which is bad, or he actually believes it, which is scary.”

At the New Hampshire debate Monday night, Gingrich responded to questions about loyalty tests for administration officials, saying, “The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S., became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square, was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed and when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, ‘You’re my enemy. I lied.’”

“Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period,” Gingrich added to applause.

But Gingrich didn’t stop there, despite an attempt by moderators to interject. He compared hiring Muslims to how Americans dealt with Nazis in the 1940s.

“We did this in dealing with the Nazis. We did this in dealing with the Communists. And it was controversial both times and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say, ‘No,’” he concluded.

Many people have chastised Gingrich, whose senior aides resigned en masse last week, for invoking 1950s-era McCarthyism, a time during which free speech came under assault amid a heightened threat of Communism.

Muslim groups expressed outrage, saying Gingrich was merely exploiting Muslims for personal and political gain.

“It’s really reprehensible when you have a mainstream presidential candidate equate Muslims with Nazis and communists,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director at Council on American-Islamic Relations. “It is what we’ve come to expect from the right wing of the political faction.”

CAIR also assailed GOP candidates Herman Cain and Rick Santorum for their comments on the question of sharia law taking over the U.S. court system.

Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, raised eyebrows earlier this year when he said he wouldn’t allow Muslims in his cabinet. Cain clarified the remark Monday, saying he might want to ask a Muslim person certain questions during a job interview about their loyalty to the country, a comment that Gingrich defended.

Although he might have created a firestorm, this isn’t the first time Gingrich has made such a comparison and, to many, his most recent comments are anything but surprising.

Gingrich spoke fervently in August against the proposed mosque and community center to be built near Ground Zero, saying that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to do so just as “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” or “we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.”

Gingrich brought up the same example of the attempted Times Square bomber’s loyalty at a debate in February, saying he “lied [about his loyalty to America] to get American citizenship.”

“Your generation is going to face a long struggle I believe at least as long as the Cold War,” Gingrich warned students during a debate with Howard Dean at George Washington University. “It is going to be extraordinarily dangerous and I think if our opponents get either a biological or nuclear weapon we are in real trouble and we are not today having the national dialogue that we should be having about how dangerous this is and how bad it could get.”

Although his comments from Monday have come under fire, observers say they are unlikely to significantly affect his already-fledgling campaign.

The comments Monday night are “not surprising coming [from] Newt in that he seems to have been born with a limited filter between his brain and his mouth,” consultant Dowd said. But “it’s hard to say it will really hurt his campaign when it was already taking on water and listing in the waves.”

In a sign that the campaign was taking a turn for the worst, a number of Gingrich’s top aides resigned last week, citing conflicting opinions about the direction of the campaign and what they perceive as a lack of motivation on the part of Gingrich and his wife, Callista, to do heavy, time-consuming fundraising and campaigning. Blog Articles — proudly powered by WordPress

The articles on are brought to you by the VDare Foundation.

We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions are tax deductible and appreciated. Contribute