Sen. Obama and the people around him

As Pamela, over at Atlas Shrugs, takes a look at the connections be between Prof. Rhashid Khalidi, University of Chicago, and Sen. Obama, I will take a look at some of his past views on things and see if there is any coherent view to his outlook on the Middle East.

One of the earliest references that pops up is that from Charles Krauthammer writing for the WaPo on 07 APR 1989 (via Globalsecurity document cache), on the possibility of a Palestinian State. In it we get this from the central part of the article:

A PLO state, an idea now as fashionable as the checkered kafiyeh, is a trap. What is the alternative? The alternative, outlined by Israeli Prime Minister Shamir on his visit this week in Washington, is a peace process that rests on two principles: a transitional period and elections.

Whatever arrangements Israel and the Palestinians make, no ultimate solution is attainable now. There has to be a transition period during which each side can demonstrate to the other its bona fides. An Israeli poll taken last week shows that two-thirds of Israelis believe that the Palestinians will not be satisfied with a West bank state. They have reason so to believe. Only two weeks ago, Arafat said that `the Declaration of Palestinian Independence constitutes a beginning of the real confrontation of the Zionist project on the land of Palestine itself.' Leila Khalid puts it more bluntly: `We will return to Nablus and then move on to Tel Aviv.' Only time will permit a demonstration that the Palestinians do not truly intend what they now say they intend for Israel.

The second idea is elections on the West Bank to produce an indigenous Palestinian negotiating authority. The ferocity with which this idea has been attacked by non-West Bank Palestinians makes one wonder what they are so afraid of. Prof. Rashid Khalidi, writing from Chicago, says there could be no real election under the harsh conditions of Israeli occupation.

The idea that a secret ballot cannot be conducted honestly by the Israelis is simply false. No one disputes the honesty of the West Bank municipal elections conducted in 1976. (In fact, they were so honest in expressing Palestinian discontent that the Israeli government eventually fired the elected mayors.)

Moreover, Palestinian propagandists never hesitate to use polling data from the West Bank to prove the fealty of the West Bankers to the PLO. An opinion poll is an open ballot. Polls require conditions of far more political freedom than do secret ballots. Khalidi and other PLO propagandists freely invoke West Bank polls, yet now pretend that a secret ballot is not to be trusted. The argument is bogus. It reflects a deep fear by Palestinian exiles--most of whom come from (and thus want to take over) not the West Bank but Israel--that with elections they are going to lose the initiative to West Bankers, who might ultimately be more prepared for compromise.

Apparently Prof. Khalidi is something of an apologist for Palestinian violence. I mean, if he truthfully meant what he said, then when Israel fully *left* the West Bank, all should be sweetness and light there, no?

On 07 NOV 2000 Prof. Khalidi was asked about recent sentiment on 'the arab street' about recent events that caused a rise in violence due to a clash between Israel and Palestinians, with the parts between acts being the VOA announcer in the report, Ed Warner (via Globalsecurity document cache):

Director of the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, Mr. Khalidi has recently returned from an overseas trip where he witnessed an outpouring of sympathy for the Palestinians that he believes is not reflected in the U-S media.

// Khalidi act //

There is a lot not reported about the campuses in Egypt, in the streets in Morocco, in cafes in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. It is below the radar screen because there is not large-scale unrest, but there is incredible dissatisfaction. So I think we will see very unexpected things happening, some of them apparently minor. Syria and Iraq are having a rapprochement, for example. But if the killing of Palestinians continues at this rate, you will see even more visible effects.

// end act //

The violence has helped weaken the already faltering economic sanctions on Iraq and even give a boost to Saddam Hussein. Government officials and businessmen from Arab and European countries are ignoring sanctions to fly to Baghdad.

[..]

Mr. Khalidi says reaction to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle will vary by country:

// Khalidi act //

What happens in each country will very much depend on the internal dynamics of that country. I am not sure that it will necessarily strengthen Islamists. It will strengthen anybody who argues for that country's independence of the United States, given the fact that the United States seems to be acting in a way contrary to the interests of Arabs and Muslims. So in different countries, it will work itself out in different ways.

// end act //

Yes, apparently the US support for Israel is enough to justify hard feelings, while helping Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia really just don't get you any credit. But then those are Muslims from a different ethnic region, and can't be expected to sympathize with Arab and Muslim feelings about Palestine.

Now most of Prof. Kahlidi's views on public display are rather bland, like his look at the Geneva Accords, which he saw as problematical in 2003, and that the US invasion of Iraq would be judged on post-war happenings more than those of the actual conflict, also seen in 2003.

What makes this sort of thing interesting is that when free elections, or as free as they can get under repressive terrorist organizations can be, were held for Palestinians, violence erupted and Prof. Kahlidi would be quoted in this CFR report of 04 OCT 2006:

Though Abbas has declared the unity talks dead, he has accepted a Qatari plan (Haaretz) to end the fighting, form a unity government, and ensure the release of an Israeli soldier held captive since June. Forming a unity government is particularly important, as it is seen as the key to unlocking Western aid that the stricken Palestinian economy (Palestine Chronicle) desperately needs. In September, Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh raised hopes when they announced they were negotiating the details of a ruling coalition between Hamas and Fatah. As analyst Rashid Khalidi told CFR.org’s Bernard Gwertzman, such an arrangement would have helped relieve the PA’s economic crisis and could have set the stage for substantive negotiations with Israel. But negotiations floundered so quickly that, even before the outbreak of violence, prospects for a unity government were “fading fast” ( Al-Ahram).

Well, so much for the ease and sweetness of open elections on restoring peace. Mr. Khalidi has had a problem with his views on the Palestinians seemingly toeing the line of the PLO in such a way as to offer terrorists legitimacy. When he was offered a Chair at Columbia University in NY in 2002, Jacob Gersham wrote an article about that in the NY Sun on 05 NOV 2002 (via Campus Watch, h/t Solomonia and Winds of Change.NET):

Columbia's effort to snatch Mr. Khalidi away from Chicago may also signal where its political sympathies lie at a time when debate over the Middle East conflict is polarizing the campus. Supporters of a petition calling for Columbia to divest from companies that sell military equipment and hardware to Israel and of a counter-petition in support of Israel have been battling for faculty signatures for the past week. Mr. Said has signed the divestment petition and has been a leading advocate for that movement.

While Mr. Khalidi is respected among his fellow Middle East scholars, many of whom share his hostility toward Israel, he has also come under attack from other Middle East experts who say he is soft on militant Islam and excuses terrorism.

In an article published in June by the American Committee on Jerusalem, an Arab-American group, Mr. Khalidi compared Israeli treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Holocaust. He wrote, "We all feel intensely a sense of urgency about what is happening to our communities in the Middle East and to our communities here, on par with what Jews in America felt in the 1940s…"

In the same article, he suggests that Arab-Americans build a memorial to the "Palestinian Nakba [catastrophe] of 1948" modeled after the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. In his writings, Mr. Khalidi has also likened the creation of the Israeli state to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which killed more than 2,000 Americans.

In his 1985 book, "Under Siege: P.L.O. Decisionmaking During the 1982 War," Mr. Khalidi thanked Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, for giving him access to PLO archives. Writing in the acknowledgments, he said, "To him [Mr. Arafat] and to the dedicated individuals working in the office of the Chairman, the P.L.O. archive and the Palestine News Agency (WAFA), who extended every possible assistance to me on three trips to Tunis, I owe deep thanks." In 1985 Mr. Arafat had not yet accepted Israel's right to exist and was considered a terrorist by the American government.

This was also covered by Alyssa A. Lappan and Jonathan Calt Harris at Frontpagemag on 18 MAR 2003. Another thing that has come up during Prof. Khalidi's career is the charge of plagiarism, which is looked at, extensively, at the Solomonia site on 08 JUN 2005.

Also mentioned in passing at Solomonia is the attempt by the NY City public school system to have Prof. Khalidi come in and lecture teachers on 'how to teach Mideast politics to schoolchildren' which is further covered in a post at Democracy Project on 25 FEB 2005 by Winfield Myers.

Be that as it may, there is an interesting intersection between Columbia and another of the persons in the Sen. Obama circle of friends and associates with a shady past, and that is seen here, at the Alliance Program site for Columbia University Scholarships from 2007:

ALLIANCE- BNP PARIBAS NORTH AMERICA SCHOLARSHIPS

The Alliance Program-BNP Paribas scholarships ($ 4 375) are dedicated to support students from Columbia University, Sciences Po and the Ecole Polytechnique pursuing the following master degree programs in finance:

- Sciences Po-SIPA Master in International Affairs
- The Ecole Polytechnique-Columbia University Master in Mathematics of Finance.

I am sure this is just one of those 'happy coincidences' that happen when you have such high flying folks around you tossing academia and cash around in a way that just happens to come together at random. Also note, a bit further up on the page, the Laurence Louër book announcement being hosted by Mr. Khalidi.

Another interesting look at how Prof. Khalidi sees the PLO and Palestine turns up in the case of Boim vs. Quaranic Lieracy et. al. filing at the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois on 10 NOV 2004 (Source: The Investigative Project on Terrorism files). This is a case looking at the death of David Boim by a HAMAS suicide bomber:

The record also contains a declaration from Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Middle Eastern History and the Director of the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago; Professor Khalidi served as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations of 1991- 1993 in Madrid and Washington, D.C. See Declaration of Rashid Khalidi (attached as Exhibit 6 to IAP and AMS' Rule 56.1 Statement). Professor Khalidirs aim is to make clear that opposition to the Israeli occupation is not the same as support for Hamas; the Court did not for one moment equate the two. But expressing that opposition via suicide bombings and terrorist attacks such as the one that killed David Boim would seem, to this Court, to be precisely what Hamas is about. And the Seventh Circuit has instructed that those who provide material support to terrorists, who help to fund - directly or indirectly - Hamas' terrorist activities are liable, under 18 U.S.C. 92333 to the same extent as those who actually commit the terrorist acts.

Which is how aiding and abetting terrorist groups seeking to get funds for them can wind you up in jail. And part of that aiding and abetting is meeting with radical 'activists' for the Palestinian 'cause'. As seen in a WorldNetDaily report by Aaron Klein of 25 FEB 2008, one figure ties together both Rashid Khalidi and Barack Obama: Ali Abunimah. Here is part of the work done by Obama on behalf of Palestinians:

Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist.

"[Obama]came with his wife. That's where I had a chance to really talk to him," Abunimah recalled. "It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.

According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him "warmly" he was sorry that "I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race."

"I'm hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front," Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.

Abunimah said Obama urged him to "keep up the good work" at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.

Obama's campaign headquarters did not reply to an e-mail request seeking comment on his fundraising activities for Palestinians.

Abunimah serves on the board of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing driver's licenses and education to illegal aliens.

WND reported yesterday the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit on which Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist, provided $75,000 in grants to the AAAN.

[..]

Obama's advocacy on behalf of Palestinians comes after WND reported yesterday the presidential candidate served on the board of the Woods Fund alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombings against government buildings.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Ayers has boasted of his involvement with the Weathermen terror group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released Sept. 11, 2001

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.

A $200 campaign contribution is listed April 2, 2001, by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two appeared as speakers together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"

The charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.

Ayers is married to another notorious Weathermen terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who also has served on panels with Obama. Dohrn was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the "most dangerous woman in America." Ayers and Dohrn raised the son of Weathermen terrorist Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for participating in a 1981 murder and robbery that left four people dead.

Amazing where a bit of looking at Rashid Khalidi will get you, isn't it?

Taking a quick look at some of the folks who utilize Ali Abunimah's 'news' from Electronic Intifada, we come to an article by Alyssa A. Lappen on the International Solidarity Movement, at FrontPage Magazine on 02 SEP 2003:

Nominally, at least, ISM was co-founded in December 2000 by former Brooklyn radical Adam Shapiro, his Arab Palestinian-American wife Huwaida Arraf; [1] and Ghassan Andoni and George Rishmawi, the Palestinian Center for Rapprochement’s respective executive director and coordinator. Andoni, a Bir Zeit University physics instructor, also heads Beit Sahur-based Alternative Tourism, which made arrangements for two British perpetrators of an April 30 suicide bombing, the 89^th in the Oslo War’s 33 months. Arafat’s Al Aksa Martyr’s Brigades and Hamas jointly claimed responsibility for the blast that killed two musicians and a waitress and gravely wounded 16 at Tel Aviv’s packed Mike’s Place music bar.

[..]

Like ISM, the Islamic Association for Palestine—which ISM’s parent group lists as a “religious organization”—parades as a social action group, a "not-for-profit, public awareness, educational, political, social, and civic, national grassroots organization dedicated to advancing a just, comprehensive, and eternal solution to the cause of Palestine and suffrages of the Palestinians." But the IAP in 1994 spun off the Council on American Islamic Relations, which joined with the Muslim Public Affairs Council, American Muslim Alliance, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim American Society, among others, in sending representatives to the Jerusalem Conference. [12] Not surprisingly, ISM’s Rapprochement parent also links to CAIR, which it likewise deceptively describes as “religious.”

Concurrent to its “peace” activities, ISM runs campaigns to release Marwan Barghouti—accused of masterminding several dozen terrorist attacks that ended the lives of equally many Israeli civilians and raise funds for questionable charities such as Palestine Children’s Welfare Fund and Palestine Children’s Relief Fund. (PCRF founder Stephen Sosebee, according to Joe Kaufman, espouses the lunatic theories of the Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, Holocaust deniers David Irving and Roger Garaudy and Saudi professor Umayma Jalahma, who last year claimed Jews use non-Jewish blood to prepare their Purim pastries.)

ISM’s parent, Andoni’s Rapprochement Center, lists among “political parties” the Hamas and Hizb-ut-Tahrir terrorist groups. The latter, founded in Jordan, now sponsors much of the terrorism in Central Asia.

Rapprochement likewise considers Ali Abunimah—American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee acolyte, Electronic Intifada founder and Al Awda devotee—a legitimate source of news. It links to a rabid conspiracy site purporting to prove that Israel purposefully bombed the USS Liberty during the Six Day War, despite recent disclosures—and U.S. documents—proving the attack a grievous accident of war. Rapprochement links to several many other groups coyly claiming to support peace and justice that in fact seek only to delegitimize Israel.

The ISM, itself, has been responsible for shifting 'peace activists' to Palestinian 'protests' and doing a bit of recruiting for attacks and bombings, too. One of the other news organizations that sees Ali Abunimah as a source of material is the local radio station WVON, or Radio Islam. Joe Kaufman, reporting for FrontPageMagazine on 03 FEB 2006 would look at CAIR and its Chicago director Ahmed Rehab. Mr. Rehab hosted a radio program on WVON as the IAP, noted above, was starting to falter:

On January 8, 2005, Rehab’s WVON Radio Islam show featured three guests: Ali Abunimah (co-founder of Electronic Intifada), Fadi Farhan (Government Affairs Director for CAIR-Chicago), and Rafiq Jaber. The topic was the upcoming Palestinian elections.

During the show, Jaber’s extremist opinions came through loud and clear. He called Mahmood Abbas “a failure,” and in a foreboding move that has only been realized today, he stated, “The only opposition that could give [Abbas] a run for his money… the only ones that could do that are the Islamist movement there, which is Hamas and Jihad.”

When asked about whether he was for a one state solution or two states (Israel and Palestine), Jaber made his true intentions known to all. He said, “Well, I think the two state solution… is really just a farce…” [CAIR’s Fadhi Farhan also chimed in, “One state solution is actually, in the long term, the only way it’s going to work, whether it be through war, whether it be through some sort of peaceful resolution of this particular conflict.”]

And Jaber raised anti-Semitic canards of old – ‘Jewish control over the media and government.’ He stated, “…the Zionists and the Jewish people, here in this country, they are [sic] big businesses and the advertisers, and so that’s one factor of it… The second part of it, of course, there is distortion of all the facts, that about Palestine, from not just the media, also from the government. The government here, which is the political leaders of our country here, [sic] that they lean also toward who is giving them the money and who is voting for them. Again, we see the Jewish people and the Jewish money and the Jewish lobby here.”

Rehab agreed: “It’s been made politically incorrect to make such statements, but I think, if you’re putting it in the context of the question (‘Why is it that you think that this media is very skewed to the Israeli side of the conflict?’), which I think is a very valid question, I think it definitely has to be made.”

That is where some of the Woods Fund money went: to Ali Abunimah and his 'news' and views. Even more interesting is the other folks who got money via Obama's association with Woods Fund to help shift money to a backer and his former boss, Allison S. Davis, seen at Chicago Sun-Times report by Tim Novak on 20 NOV 2007:

Seven years ago, Sen. Barack Obama was on the board of a Chicago charity when his former boss, Allison S. Davis, came looking for money.

At the time, Davis was a developer represented by the law firm where Obama worked, as well as a small contributor to Obama's political campaign funds. He wanted the charity to help fund his plans to build housing for low-income Chicagoans.

Obama agreed. He voted with other directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago to invest $1 million with Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners L.P., a $17 million partnership that Davis still operates.

It's not clear whether Obama told other board members of his ties to Davis, whose family would go on to donate more than $25,000 to Obama's political campaigns, including his bid to be president of the United States.

"Let me get back to you on that," Obama presidential campaign spokesman Bill Burton said when asked about that two weeks ago. He never did.

[..]

As a developer, Davis' partners have included Tony Rezko, the now-indicted political fund-raiser who has been among Obama's biggest political supporters.

A few months after Davis left the law firm, Obama won his first political office -- a seat in the Illinois Senate. His campaign contributors included Rezko and Davis.

Two years later, Obama wrote to city and state officials, urging them to give money to New Kenwood LLC, a company that Davis and Rezko formed to build an apartment building for low-income seniors at 48th and Cottage Grove.

Davis and Rezko were building that project in 2000 when Davis approached the Woods Fund, seeking its investment in future projects. Besides Obama, Davis also had ties to another of the not-for-profit organization's seven board members -- Howard Stanback, a former city aviation commissioner who worked for Davis at New Kenwood.

You, too, with just a few good political and mob connections can be in the world of high finance development in downtown Chicago! So the Woods Fund not only has the distinction of having ties to Ali Abunimah (via AAAN), but to 'Tony' Rezko and Allison Davis via Barack Obama. Plus Mr. Ayers sitting on the board of the Woods Fund at the same time as Obama, thus both having a say on where the funds went to.

Just so many ways to go with this, still that basic inner circle still needs just a bit more fleshing out. I'm leaving Rev. Jeremiah Wright to others, who seem a bit hotter on that, while I go after the rest of the groupings... what does that bring us to so far? A quick rundown:

1. Raila Odinga - Working with Dick Morris to bring the 'politics of change' to Kenya which has looked like ethnic cleansing and intimidation to get his dream of fulfilling his father's destiny of leading Kenya. Lots of connections there to the al-Bakri group, and the sudden appearance of Red Mafia types after the discovery of oil reserves under the Lamu Peninsula.
2. Antoin 'Tony' Rezko - Syrian-American mobster with ties to quite a few people in local business, real estate and politics. The local 'fixer' sort of deal maker associated with the mob in Chicago.
3. Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Practicing 'Black Liberation Theology' which has whites as some sort of harbinger of the Anti-Christ. Plus a view that government could get millions addicted to illegal drugs and develop AIDS to target black folks... which doesn't explain why it hit gays first... really if the government had this sort of power, Rev. Wright wouldn't be around now, would he? And why is he supporting someone going into that ultimate corrupter and hater of blacks, the US Government? If it is so evil, its a death sentence, now, isn't it?
4. Nadhmi Auchi - Cousin of Saddam Hussein, international financier that has worked with al Qaeda and HAMAS, has deep ties to the Red Mafia, major funneler of kickbacks via the OFF scandal, utilized the corrupted Clearstream organization for money laundering, and one of the richest men in the UK. Seemingly has one-degree separation from anyone who is anyone in diplomacy, government, and the underworld... and often not even at one-degree.
5. Rashid Khalidi - Ex-spokesman for the PLO, Palestinian apologist par excellence, and tried to give HAMAS cover for its execution of a US citizen.
6. Ali Abunimah - Understudy of Khalidi, continued Palestinian apologist, and wonderful source for radicals to point to when they need reliable news that fits their views... if not the facts involved.
7. William C. Ayers - Weatherman, let off because of tainted evidence and unrepentant about his bombings. Radical to say the least and associated with Obama, Abunimah and Khalidi. Also sat on the Woods Fund with Obama.
8. Allison S. Davis - Former boss of Obama at the Woods Fund, recipient of funds for it to do some 'development' in Chicago, and involved with 'Tony' Rezko and Robert Vanecko, nephew of Mayor Daley. Together they have been involved not only in development scandals, but also a sewer development scandal that depleted the city's pension funds.

What 'politics of change'! All sorts of names involved with crime and corruption I hadn't read about until Barack Obama hit the scene.

Who else is there? Hmmmm....

How about Michael Pfleger? Heard of him? I certainly hadn't before I ran across his name looking at this web of ties. When I went to look up his history, well, its not as major as, say, Jeremiah Wright, but still the man has some 'issues' about things. Take this earliest article I could come up with from the NYT on 27 JUL 1989 about a white priest embracing black 'spiritual roots':

Michael Pfleger, blond and blue-eyed, wraps himself in the multicolored vestments of an African prince and celebrates Mass with the fire and fury of a down-home Baptist minister.

Over and over, his parishioners, almost all of whom are black, break into his sermon to say ''Amen'' and ''Tell it, Father Mike!'' as he shouts and preaches and jumps about an altar shaped like an African drum. Soon all the members of the congregation at St. Sabina Catholic Church are on their feet, clapping and swaying to the beat of the gospel band.

Father Pfleger is among a small but growing group of Roman Catholic pastors, several of them white, who are trying to stretch the image of Catholicism, to superimpose black and African traditions onto the basic Catholic rite. In Los Angeles, for example, people come from as far as 100 miles away for the gospel music and African dancing at Mass at St. Brigid's. The priest there, the Rev. Paul Banet, said he would now like to develop a salsa Mass with mariachi music for Hispanic parishes.

[..]

Father Pfleger said he noticed that many black Catholics would attend Mass, then go to black Protestant churches or listen on the radio for ''real church.'' He figured, ''Why can't we have church at church?''

He insists that the black and African elements he added to the liturgy transcend denominational lines. ''It's not Baptist to clap one's hands or have gospel music or speak in tongues and get filled with the holy spirit,'' he said. ''It's human and spiritual. No church owns that.''

The Rev. Ronald Krisman, executive director of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy in Washington, said many of the new practices were within acceptable bounds, as liturgical styles have been liberalized by the church in the past two decades.

''What a normal American black parish does on Sunday is perfectly within the norm of Catholic liturgy,'' Father Krisman said. ''It's not a far-reaching adaptation. There has been more indigenization of the liturgy. It reflects the development and renewal or our liturgical life.''

But St. Sabina on Chicago's South Side is not the typical black Catholic church. Ebony wood carvings, Ashanti foot stools and kinte cloths make the altar area look more like an African art gallery. Banners of red, black and green, the colors of African liberation, hang from the rafters, along with excerpts from the Black National Anthem. A 20-foot mural of a black Jesus looms over the altar.

Apparently one does not need to be black to preach 'black liberation theology'. And just why is it that this stuff is alien to white folks, like we've been fed the past few weeks? Yes, I've certainly heard about such things in my life, going to the 'hotbed of apathy' at SUNY Buffalo with a nearly arthritic band of radical social oriented professors... which is one reason I went into the sciences. Still, I can see where Barack Obama, would have found a kindred soul. From a NYT article on 09 SEP 2007 which recounts his problems breaking into politics where Bobby L. Rush, a Black Panther, held the local seat and he was challenging in the primary and note who would stick by him:

In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama wrote: “Less than halfway into the campaign, I knew in my bones that I was going to lose. Each morning from that point forward I awoke with a vague sense of dread, realizing that I would have to spend the day smiling and shaking hands and pretending that everything was going according to plan.”

Billboards in the district read: “I’m sticking with Bobby.” A few black elected officials endorsed Mr. Obama but most fell in line behind the incumbent. Ministers closed ranks. The Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of the St. Sabina Catholic Church, said other ministers and congregation members called to complain when he endorsed Mr. Obama.

There you have it the 'politics of change' in action: moving from a Black Panther radical to a more mainstream radical! So when Barack Obama would come out against the war in Iraq he would have a reliable ally who was always against the war in Iraq:

A Catholic priest, Michael Pfleger, whose parish is located in one of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods, declared, "If George Bush wants to set deadlines, he could set deadlines on unemployment, apartheid, homelessness. He has been hell-bound for months on war. I have never heard a President talk so much war talk in my lifetime." During Vietnam, American labor unions and blue-collar workers tended to support the war. This time, the presidents of * nine major unions argued for a peaceful solution.

Ah, yes, that was from Time article Anxiety Before the Storm... AP story 06 MAY 1998 at ardmoreite:

CHICAGO (AP) -- One calls himself an ''errand boy for Jesus,'' the other appears as the devil on the current cover of ''Rolling Stone.''

The battle of personalities between the Rev. Michael Pfleger and talk-show host Jerry Springer may have been inevitable, but the outcome seems to have surprised Springer himself.

Calling Springer's fists-flying show immoral, Pfleger urged an end to the fights and organized an advertising boycott that prompted several companies to drop their ads on the highly rated program.

Yes! Change! Those all-powerful talk show hosts just need to be stood up to. Beyond that he did get a minor scandal when he was re-appointed to another term in his position outside of that traditionally expected, and some were wondering if it wasn't time for him to 'move on' in 2002. Andwhen Frrakhan fell sick back in 2006 (via Biafra Nigeria World News archives), well:

According to Farrakhan, he is at present under treatment, guided by Howard University doctors. He disclosed this in a letter dated September 11, posted on the website of the group's newspaper, The Final Call.

"I am forced to do what is necessary to restore myself nutritionally. Otherwise, my present condition could be life-threatening", he wrote.

Michael Pfleger , Pastor of St. Sabina who visited Farrakhan at his Michigan home a few weeks ago, said that the recuperating Farrakhan is "in great spirit"

Pfleger said: "He is not a man on his death bed. He wants to step back from decision-making and let others step up.

From that and a minor dust-up against Wal-Mart, Father Pfleger would come out to support Sen. Obama for President, as seen by Matt C. Abbot at Renewamerica, 17 JAN 2007. Apparently Mr. Abbot went a bit too easy on Father Pfleger as Cassidy Bugos at Lifesitenews would light into him on 18 JAN 2008:

CHICAGO, January 18, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholic priest Father Michael Pfleger of the Archdiocese of Chicago wants people to know that pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage Senator Barack Obama “is the best thing to come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy.”

Father Pfleger says he has known Obama for 20 years. “I think Barack Obama is in a class of his own,” he said.

As an Illinois Senator Obama had the unstinting approval of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his dependable support of pro-abortion legislation. Now, after a short two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has earned 100% ratings from pro-abortion groups across the board, including NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Organization for Women.

In 2002 he voted against a bill to protect or offer medical care to babies that survive botched abortions. Prior to that he opposed an Illinois State ban on partial-birth abortion, and refused his vote to a bill mandating internet pornography filters in schools.

There, that should be a good round-up of the Catholic feeling about Father Pfleger.

Now some folks have been wondering what sort of folks back Sen. Obama in the way of gun control, and for that we will drop by The Volokh Conspiracy with Eugene Volokh looking at how things went with Father Pfleger on 29 MAY 2007:

Jesse Jackson Ally Calls for "Snuffing Out" Gun Store Owner:

The Second Amendment Foundation is complaining about this incident:

Chuck's Gun Shop, 14310 S. Indiana Ave., was the target of the protest [march led by Jesse Jackson]. The protesters blamed Chuck's, which is just across the border from Chicago, for many of the guns on the city's streets....

Jackson and Revs. James Meeks and Michael Pfleger encouraged the crowd to push for stricter gun laws. They vowed that the rally was just the beginning and that civil disobedience was possible....

The SAF reports,

In a stunning audio recording of Pfleger’s remarks, the pastor of St. Sabina’s Church can clearly be heard stating, “John Riggio ... we’re going to find you and snuff you out.” Moments later, Pfleger added, “We’re going to snuff out John Riggio, we’re going to snuff out legislators that are voting ... against our gun laws and we’re coming for you because we are not going to sit idly.”

The SAF argues that this is a death threat, and demands that the Justice Department investigate Pfleger for this.

Yes, 'snuffing out' gun store owners heard from a Catholic Priest. One wonders how this advances the cause of the 'Prince of Peace'. Still I am sure the good Father Pfleger does good work, like that with senior centers, as seen in this Chicago Tribune story of 31 DEC 2006:

Senior Suites is the brand name of the affordable buildings developed by Chicago-based Senior Lifestyle Corp. The company, in a joint-venture with the Beloved Community, a neighborhood group affiliated with St. Sabina Church and community activist Rev. Michael Pfleger, is developing the Auburn Gresham building.

Bob Gawronski, vice president of development at Senior Lifestyle, expects the Auburn Gresham building to open around Thanksgiving. (Names are being taken for a waiting list. Call 312-673-4333.) Residents must have an annual income of less than $31,680 for a single person and $36,180 for a couple. Also, five apartments are available for those with higher incomes. Rents for those range from $640 to $750.

One of the men tied up in the recent Rezko deals is Alderman Edward M. Burke, who had voted to approve Rezko's plans for the South Loop deal, as seen in this Chicago Sun-Times article of 04 OCT 2007. And on the list of folks doing business with him that are also of interest is this little company tucked away far down the list:

29. Senior Lifestyle Corp.

Apparently the folks running Senior Lifestyle Corp. will have to give at least a few answers as to the business relationship they had with Ald. Burke and Rezmar. Newsalert blog of FEB 2008 has a bit more on Ald. Burke, but this is really a bit too precious to leave out:

Alderman Burke has been accused of fixing a murder trial for the Chicago Mob and strangely hasn't sued the publishers of the book(go to pages 160,161,and 162).

Perhaps he just forgot? Still, its interesting to see just the sort of respectable politico that Ald. Burke is or is not, and that is an awfully long client list to go through.

Free Land: Olaf's Tale

From those who remember, Free Land, the Saga of Olaf the Navigator transcribed:

From that first winter to first spring had seen hard work for all, of felling trees and hunting game and using winter fodder.  Such that was brought of kept animals, of pig and sheep and goat, proved capable of pulling provender from snow covered fields.  With that spring Eric who came to be known of Three Lands, made right and sure that beyond the landing a second place was found to espy the seas of north and south beyond great spit of land.  Thus it was in spring when Eric, chosen Lawgiver for the year, gave Olaf two ships and scant crew to send back to leave the word.

That winter had seen much work by all, and the hunting of prizes brought much pride, but it was those of the bear of black, found in winter den that made Eric alight and begin simple tanning work.  The smell of forge and tanning and other needful things brought them fair reminder of homelands and showed them what was needed.  So Eric would come to Olaf and his chosen crew and speak of needful things.

'Olaf you are most trustworthy to find fair way back, and I know you thought as you espied the coast during our travels here.  For those not as good as you for finding seaward ways, coastal markers are needed for those lesser ones who may become disguided.  Choose carefully and quickly for we both know the seas will turn and in the shift of early spring, the currents are not easy to discern.  If one is storm-tossed and finds bleak days of travel, ensure that they can find a marker and get their wits about them.  Make it quick and fast, my friend as you have a long year's worth of trips ahead.'

Olaf smiled from face that had been from ice to  balmy clime, and eyes twinkled of a man who would make best time of any and knew the fair weeks of time between the lands of old. 'Not as slow as that, my Eric, not not that slow at all.  For coastal navigators see the fall of tree and cast of rock and know if it is nature or man that made it.  You, yourself, from North clime had seen that in fjords and then again to Iceland and yourself made them in Greenland.  The obvious are easy and the subtle faster, too, so bare two weeks to get it done with landing for single days to mark.  Those that follow with any wit of the sea and land will know whereof they find, and follow markings to know their way north to south inclined.'

Eric nodded to Olaf and looked to his fair crews, for two ships were taken one for trading and long ship for the work. 'And you that go with him, know that you will return with trading ship.  From Greenland old home do trade with what you're given for those things you need.  Olaf has further mission beyond that land of green and ice, and will be most of year doing so, and your return will be self-guided.  Learn well from Olaf Navigator, he has plied many of the seas and no truer Viking is there in one who knows its ways.'

With that Eric and others helped load the ships that were to go, and gave special bundles to Olaf for his further needs.  From there Olaf guided well and each three days alighted with his crews.  Asqe of his people, now Viking in the full, helped Olaf to mark those places that his people would likewise know.  Even with such help a few places went beyond a day, but beyond the rocky cairns Olaf inscribed the way.  Upon sheer cliff and boulders strewn, the markers subtle made, have kept the way clear-marked for generations later until better could be had.  And still, all this time after, a storm tossed crew can find, those subtle waypath markers that lead them to fair clime.

To the second land Olaf gave it scant attention, although Asqe ensured that his people with simple yet sturdy craft could find a proper way.  Olaf who had seen such markings asked Asqe of their lore, and Asqe gave look and then nodded to explain the craft. 'This marking of curving and the three lines up, is the great beasts of the deep making for air and upwelling.  So when seen a man knows that such danger does lie near, and will shift away from it to make safer passage.  This of curving line down with rays down upon it, show the opposite for warning, where ocean plunges deep like the sounding beast.  Then the three up under three down shows the hunter rocks, the place that will suck you in to fair and ugly death upon them.  We have many others and no man or clan has set store, but these I make and use and are easy to know their marking way if you know the man and clan.'

Olaf laughed heartily, on shore as they were, and clearly enjoyed such knowledge from such man and his clan.  'Mark well, all of you, the simple nature of the Navigator!  All you need is eye and knowledge, clear Thought and Memory and such things will guide you well.  From those things I can see how hunting grounds are marked for sea, and know the dangers of these people and to you and me.  If ever storm tossed beyond our normal trade, seek the waypath guides and puzzle them until their meaning is in the clear.  For they are to be read by those with dim light and rain upon them, they are to save your life when all else has turned against you.'

They did meet at the near tip of second land to Greenland, peoples who spend the spring and summer and the fare elsewhere for the winter.  Aqse knew of them and talked with them, and Olaf made such gifts as meager store provided, and then the Viking markers put down, five great boulders upon the shore.  While many of the smaller ones are gone or since moved, those five to show the waypath remain to show the way.  From there scant markings on the first land as it was well known, and only simple guide to show the new lands path were needed there.

In fair Greenland winter had just given up its breath, but Spring had not renewed the land as the melt water still did flow.  Olaf sought out young Lief, the son of Eric to the Three Lands, and bade him and his mother well to let them know their fate. 'Eric bids you no ill-will, but to know his decision he abides.  To both of you his caring and hopes for gentle guides.  He says new home will welcome you, so long as peace is kept, and ask him not to change to ways he did not seek.  Young Lief you are to know that half his inheritance is yours for you and the clan to live.  That other half as he has given, now you are to read the bundle that is mine to give.'

With that to Lief he handed small pouch secured with Eric's hair, and simple knife to open it brought out few but needful things.  Lief looked at it and gasped at the simple clan ensign made upon hide necklace. 'Eric entrusts family's well being to me, then, and I am to ensure the right.  With half his wealth more than enough is done to ensure that this be carried out.'

Olaf nodded, 'That is for the true, you are now to hold fast and best for your family entire.'

Next Lief looked at simple grooved planks, tiny and bound together. Nodding Lief, who had shown ability as a stripling mad the simple match. 'His few ships are to be divided one set old and one to new with Greenland between them both.'

Smiling deeply, Olaf said, 'You have spent fair time in repairing with Eric and Me on voyages back along the way, and by fair mark you would trade my boots from me for snail shells if given half a chance.'

The final piece was keen metal shard and simple smoothed wooden peg, bound at the center with hair that Lief looked closely at.  Then back to pouch and to Olaf, then to the entwined pieces.  'He has bound you as messenger and entrusted you with Nornish path.  And in that binding I am to help as you speak for him before me.'

Olaf's face went calm, and closed eyes for a bit, then opened them and steady, as if gazing to calm horizon. 'Lief the time has come for Vikings to announce their chosen path, and as you see I'm messenger for those that have already left.  To each of those sigils mark a way to go so that rulers know what it is they face.  From Greenland to Iceland goes the way of trade.  I will tell you now that fair sea journey direct will cut off Greenland in some time as I can see how the oceans shift and direct way though longer can be navigated.  As clan head you must know this in the first of my stops from here.'

Lief laid down the bound pieces, 'Such binding is needful to know.  As head of family and of clan spread to here, this is not easy news to take.'

'Yes, and too much so, Lief, and yet that is the way of it.  Next is the grooved wood which represents the Isles and second destination.'

'You go to Eire and then to Angles then... ah, and after that to Danemark.'

With a snort and short laugh, Olaf did reply, 'Oh, yes I do and like in Iceland of the Norse I will let the Danes come to know the message Eric has given to me for them.  But not before delivering word port to port until I get there of this new and fine fair land.'

'To let it be known?'

'Aye, Lief you are seeing know what Eric does intend.  Tick off in your mind the clans aggrieved in each of these lands, disinherited by poorly given Law and outcast for simple clan disputes.  Eric was but one of many, as we both well full know.  This message will get to them by those that travel near and far, and hear of Viking making fair land and Law for those willing to settle grievances.'

Lief sat back, and let out a long whistle. 'I had not thought... but yes it is the score that we go aviking on the trade and even now there is final bounds.  Many are the dispossessed and they will hear the whisper of the Blood Red made good to new and open realm.  That will take time, Olaf.'

'Oh time enough, for sure.  But the immediate need as you can see is to find those who are skilled in making.  We have those things in abundance and we lack skilled hands to go around, and so when family and clan do shift will come those who know of iron, wood, grain and creatures.  Yet not for faint-hearted roustabouts who think first with sword and then with head, for that will get you killed in crossing and in making a new home.  While the people of this new land are not so skilled in those things, they are skilled enough to draw high and dear cost when confronted.  By numbers and sudden appearance did we shock them enough to listen, else we would all be dead, throats slit in deep night.  But Eric was not the Red for nothing, as you well know, and vigil was our answer until peace could be talked.'

Thus Lief nodded and looked at two and then realized the co-joining, before the third. 'Not only Dane but Norse, joined Kings they are for sure so to both you must go.'

'Well and fairly said, that, and from Iron south to Wooden north one message will both get.'

'That leaves... oh, to Swedes!'

Olaf grimaced as he saw the look of Lief in realizing. 'Yes, a final tangle to unskein needs be done to set great things aright.  Yet, as strange as it may seem the message will be exactly the same to there as to the other Kings as told.  Yet past Jutes to Swedes and even Finns and Lapp and deep beyond, a message will be whispered by the presences in far Kingdom where Thing also rules the people.  None will be forgotten in the north and from there it will trickle to the south, although in places it will be more than just a trickle in return.'

Leaning forward Lief gazed at Olaf and soon it was calm sea to calm sea in their gazes. 'Eric is doing the hard thing, Olaf.  What is the message he bids you to bring?'

A frown and sigh from Olaf, 'That is for those leaders to know and clan leaders to hear after it is fairly given.  I can say, though, Lief that for at least a generation Greenland will prosper before the shorter route is fully plied.  I have not done it myself as of yet, but there is knowledge in deep, unknown seas and those who know them.'

Nodding softly, Lief came to understand. 'My way is set even though I am free, for no other can be done.  I think I understand now, for first time its true, just how my father felt being free and yet so confined by fates as to rail once and forever to break them.  While its a harsh task I cannot shirk the justice in it and the opportunities for me and clan.  I can stay in town that will prosper for short time and then slowly feel lack of trade, or build something new by exploring.  By Viking way.'

'That is the way of it, Lief: stay at home like those south of the Alps these days or take up satchel and sword and net and make new ways to go.  I am Navigator and that is the life for me, but for you it must be decided how you handle what the Norns have given,' holding up hand, 'I know that is not your line of thought or belief but that is what spurred Eric onwards.  And surely in your way of looking there is room for understanding that while things may be out of your control, yourself you never are.'

Lief nodded, 'That is ever the way of it, Olaf, and I will pray for guidance to dear Christ, but I will not let these events move me from doing what needs be done.  Eric has damned us to live in exciting times to prosper and that will keep us busy for the rest of our lives, is true.'

'Very busy Lief, now let us go over the listing of those bare things that are needed for new land, so that you can find a way to prosper and ensure your position by scant foreknowledge so as to make new knowledge with each and every trip. For me the bare morn tide awaits and messages to spread and give.'

 

Thus the Saga fragment ends picked up in other tales and lands, and better known in them for what it is they are.

Sen. Obama, missing the mark

After reading speeches by Sen. Obama I have come to understand the wide differences between the spoken word, which moves to passion and emotion, and the written word, which requires precision and rigorousness of thought to produce a cogent observation. Sen. Obama is extremely good with oratory and is able to take rather mundane and quite vaporous ideas and make them sound new and wonderful, while they are old and re-vamped. When a politician reaches for my emotions, I smell 'deceit' as this is a Nation founded on Reason and Discourse to create democracy amongst the public. With that said, I was quite prepared to actually get something different from Sen. Obama as he had, apparently, the first real chance in his campaign to seriously switch gears, derail both opponents left (Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain) and perform a serious piece of jujitsu on the Left and Right in America to so befuddle them that the Center would fall to him in the election.

From his speech transcript (via RealClearPolitics) he would have had to change the basic thematic structure of it and jettison those parts supporting Rev. Wright starting at the paragraph that begins "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." all the way to this sentence starting "This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." After that remove the next two paragraphs and the first sentence that follows, "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community." and then continue on with the one following so that things look like this:

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

By removing the language of hatred, black community and trying to excuse those who have had two generations to work things out, this would be the point where he draws things together, he has spanned the generation that originally fought and is now addressing the resentment caused by the 'solutions' put in place.

At this point there is one thing that he could do that no other candidate in the United States could do, and that is to call for the ending of all racial quotas, set-asides and anything else, and dedicate him to the full equality, under law, of all citizens of the US. The rhetoric would sound something like this:

"Thus, I have come to realize by listening to the problems of blacks and whites together that the solutions that have been put in place by the intervening generations have not worked and need to be abolished as they are causing more divisiveness than Unity in Our Nation.

I pledge to you here, today, before all of the members of the American Community that for the rest of my life in public service I will work to end all enforcement of all racial, ethnic or any other quota that divides America. Two Generations is enough and more than enough for us to join together and examine the problems of the poor, black and white, and address them together as one Nation. While I am young in this world, I promise you that I will work unstintingly to confront demagogues and repudiate any who would divide America by race, class, ethnicity, gender or mere skin color.

That has no place in America today.

For all these things that were seen as 'good', in the way of handouts and set-asides, have caused tremendous harm to America and must end, along with a culture that has come to depend on our government for mere cash while it is their bodies and souls that we must come together on saving as good Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and people of all religious faith and background. That is what we are enjoined to do by our Forefathers by that great document created so long ago and yet is as fresh as yesterday.

If elected President I will not enforce any law that divides this Nation in that way and will take any that wish to dispute this to the Supreme Court and I will work hard, with Congress, to end these things forevermore in America so that we are One People striving to perform the perfection of ourselves with our fellow man. I will also have investigated and prosecuted any and all discrimination suits that have founding and that go against the basic civil rights of the citizenry without respect to the race, class, religion, ethnicity or gender of those bringing the suit. Congress can impeach me on this, if they dare, but I will never bow down to those wishing to divide America."

Yes, he could have gone for the 'content of their characters, not color of their skin' route! Pure and equal enforcement of the laws, no special privileges for anyone, and anyone who crosses that line towards division in the area of civil rights gets the boom lowered on them.

Sen. Clinton would see her white support evaporate as Sen. Obama would be seen as 'delivering on the post-racial goods' while she practiced the 'old and tired ways of division'. She could not say nor do these things as Bill had taken it as far as he could possibly go within the Party by a white President.

Sen. McCain would see someone who would be outdoing Ronald Reagan and who had stolen this social issues from the *right* and gotten support from it in the *center*. All of his work at 'bipartisanship' would be seen as mere verbiage as he would be faced with someone who had just pointed out that 'bipartisanship' is the problem, not the cure, in the way it has been practiced since the mid-1960's. For the man who had spent his years in office putting quotas, set-asides and other such race based goodies into laws, he would now be slapped and slapped hard with them as failures.

What would the Left do? They would have *no one* to turn to: Sen. Clinton has already demonstrated that she garners more division and hatred than acceptance and support. They could not demagogue it as they would be pointed out as doing so and 'part of the problem'. And if they shift to accept it, then they are taking a 'conservative' position, which they have decried for decades... which is part of the problem, of course.

And the Right? Dumbfounded if this speech had been done like that: lead in, acceptance of what Rev. Wright has done, and then the ultimate repudiation of all the words and ideas that Wright is espousing. Yes, problems with the sudden shift, but they also have a huge video clip of promises to hold Sen. Obama to and decry any actions taken contrary to those views. Really, once people started to examine the record on Sen. McCain, what could the Right do? Say that racial quotas and set-asides are *good* when a black man is running saying they are bad and hurtful... to whites?

Heh.

He could have topped it off naming Bill Cosby as VP!

Yup, backhand and forehand, against race, culture and, really, all stereotypes.

Now that would have been a neat piece of work by an astute politician able to realize the multiple errors in the politicians going after him and tie them all in knots. By the time anyone could craft a half-way decent response, PA would be over, the super-delegates would have been swayed and hard by this speech, and Sen. McCain would be facing someone trumping his 'civility' campaign from the Right and the Left to pull in the Center. The far Left would go nuts, of course, but they wouldn't matter due to their small size and lack of sway outside of the Primaries, and this sort of speech would have galvanized a wide spectrum around Sen. Obama.

Of course Sen. Obama has not the insight, guts, nor courage to say these things... he goes on talking about separate communities, but he does not address the concrete things that have been done which have not healed that divide.

Nor does he taken any firm stance on the actual things that these 'communities' can do to become fully at one with each other and set the reverberations of the past on *mute*.

Unfortunately Sen. Obama is not the man to do this... he is a Democratic politician from the corrupt political machine tied into racial division and organized crime. America will have to wait for a better man to say what needs to be said.

DIME, COIN and the National toolkit: Global COIN - pt. 3

The following is considered a 'rough draft' or 'working paper'.

From the Field Manual FM3-24 Counterinsurgency manual:

1-1. Insurgency and counterinsurgency (COIN) are complex subsets of warfare. Globalization, technological advancement, urbanization, and extremists who conduct suicide attacks for their cause have certainly influenced contemporary conflict; however, warfare in the 21st century retains many of the characteristics it has exhibited since ancient times. Warfare remains a violent clash of interests between organized groups characterized by the use of force. Achieving victory still depends on a group’s ability to mobilize support for its political interests (often religiously or ethnically based) and to generate enough violence to achieve political consequences. Means to achieve these goals are not limited to conventional forces employed by nation-states.

1-2. Insurgency and its tactics are as old as warfare itself. Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02). Stated another way, an insurgency is an organized, protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken the control and legitimacy of an established government, occupying power, or other political authority while increasing insurgent control. Counterinsurgency is military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency (JP 1- 02). These definitions are a good starting point, but they do not properly highlight a key paradox: though insurgency and COIN are two sides of a phenomenon that has been called revolutionary war or internal war, they are distinctly different types of operations. In addition, insurgency and COIN are included within a broad category of conflict known as irregular warfare.

These outlooks give us a context for local insurgency on a localized scale, but does it offer a paradigm for translating modern events into a global scale?

To examine and define this the concept of 'constituted government' is a main stumbling block as there is no constituted global government at the global scale with anything like a constitution. What there is, however, is a set of systems that arise from having States, be they City States or Nation States, especially when there is contact between States. If 'constituted government' is the idea of government formed to meet a set of needs by those under it, then that constitution (be it written or unwritten) is the description of the means of how such government is allowed to act. Thus 'constituted government' is a description of that process of running affairs at that higher level of the State as opposed to purely local or municipal government interested in sub-State affairs. This is not only not unknown, but has been regularized in the 9th through 18th centuries via a concept known as the law of nations. What is the law of nations?

By having States and having to address both sub-State and State-to-State concerns there arises a need for functions to address these concerns. We are typically used to the form of State government that addresses us, as individuals, on the internal side of things as the State represents those within it, no matter what form of government it has. Thus from absolute dictatorship or totalitarian government all the way to representative democracy or direct democracy are the internal limits for how States may run their internal affairs. Externally, however, things are not as wide ranging as attempts to shift ruling government beyond the borders of a State bring that State into contact with other States who are often hostile to such changes. By the very act of having such a State and having contact the law of nations arises as the means to create such contact and regularize it. While the law of nations is 'voluntary law' on the actual citation of it as a ruling internal concept or for creating civil law, it is less than voluntary on the external side as other States are working to ensure that any any other State adheres to its agreements.

With that understanding it is very possible to instantiate that there is 'constituted government' at an international scale, and that it is a flat or non-hierarchical form of government: there is no higher law to appeal to than the law of nations. One could, in theory, have a State in absolute isolation and never need the law of nations as a concept, but the moment a State meets up with another State the law of nations appears. A State may not like nor want such a law of nations, but by being a State that is what it gets as part of its make-up. Just as individuals are born with inalienable rights, so are States and the work to define that took centuries and was instituted via a series of views and reviews of philosophy that slowly moved into legal and diplomatic context until a well established law of nations was finally written down and discussed deeply for decades thereafter.

The actual book Law of Nations, by Emmerich de Vattel, is a deeply interesting text as it precedes the formation of the US and was utilized by William Blackstone to examine the English Common Law in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. I have examined the import of these texts in overview previously (here for a look at those plus the Black Book of the Admiralty) and how they influenced the creation of the US (article here), and were discussed by Federalists and the so-called 'Anti-Federalists' during the 1787-89 period. Emmerich de Vattel was, himself, working on the views of others, particularly Hugo Grotius, who had done On the Laws of War and Peace with the then understood law of nations. From these we can then look at Law of Nations and examine just what a Sovereign State is:

§ 1. Of the state, and of sovereignty

A NATION or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.

From the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests, and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a Public Authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the Sovereignty; and he or they who are invested with it are the Sovereign. (10)

§ 2. Authority of the body politic over the members.

It is evident, that, by the very act of the civil or political association, each citizen subjects himself to the authority of the entire body, in every thing that relates to the common welfare. The authority of all over each member, therefore, essentially belongs to the body politic, or state; but the exercise of that authority may be placed in different hands, according as the society may have ordained.

That re-cap is necessary to remind individuals that a State is created by society and the people within it, and not the other way around. States do not suddenly form and gather people to them, and are, instead, an organic arising of creating a society in need of self-defense and mutual support. Any necessarily large society, and this has differed in history from few thousands to multiple millions, that seeks mutual support, accord and safety will then form a State to help direct that larger set of needs. Indeed, the system of Nations is the most liberal ever devised as it allows each and every society to give rise to its defense and self-government to its greater ends, something which no larger government than that society, commonly known as Empire, can do.

What is exemplary about Law of Nations is that it spends its time defining just what Sovereignty is, what government is, and what it should set about doing in a general way for its Nation. Almost the entirety of the first book is spent on this *alone* including the duty and obligations of the government to its people and the people to its government and the necessity of piety. Not left out are federal states or elective states, each of which are seen as legitimate though each having differing ways to mete out Sovereign powers that are in accord with the society under it. It is rigorous in this view because the basic and understood internal mechanisms of States were quite visible by that time, and the necessity of stating them so that governments could have understanding of what other governments (and their own) were doing and why gave insight into exactly how interactions could take place between States.

In that way Law of Nations, both in the written form and in the lower case form of common understanding of State to State contact, is 'voluntary' but the necessities of having a State make it descriptive of all States and how they work. If a State does not do these things then it is on its way to not being a State any longer. Thus, when looking at globalized insurgency against the Nation State concept, the key things it will attack are those systems of understanding both inside and amongst Nation States. To break down States any insurgency must attack the Law of Nations so as to remove its understanding from the body politic of Nations and from individuals. When that understanding is undermined, then States will begin to falter without internal knowledge and accountability for their actions. And those actions may be internal or external to the State, and the lack of accountability may likewise be internal, external or both, simultaneously.

From this attacking the Nation State system via COIN, as seen in FM3-24 can be seen in as a politico-military struggle consists of a set of political and military views that work in concert, they fall into categories of political, military, and fused politico-military. These are, in actuality, three separate axes that intersect at the common insurgency point of weakening or destabilizing the current ruling system. Each of these axes can work independently, as in political views that do not coincide with direct action military views, and yet aim at the same end, or together so that there is outright coordination between military and political activities, as in the various 'armed wings' of insurgent organizations.

When taken in the military realm, the original view of law of nations was to differentiate between Public War and Private War. Here Law of Nations is a touchstone for the international system of treaties, as it properly defines these two things as separate spheres of warfare in Book III:

§ 1. Definition of war.⁽¹³⁶⁾

WAR is that state in which we prosecute our right by force. We also understand, by this term, the act itself, or the manner of prosecuting our right by force: but it is more conformable to general usage, and more proper in a treatise on the law of war, to understand this term in the sense we have annexed to it.

§ 2. Public war.⁽¹³⁶⁾

Public war is that which takes place between nations or sovereigns, and which is carried on in the name of the public power, and by its order. This is the war we are here to consider: — private war, or that which is carried on between private individuals, belongs to the law of nature properly so called.

§ 3. Right of making war.⁽¹³⁶⁾

In treating of the right to security (Book II. Chap. IV.), we have shown that nature gives men a right to employ force, when it is necessary for their defence, and for the preservation of their rights. This principle is generally acknowledged: reason demonstrates it; and nature herself has engraved it on the heart of man. Some fanatics indeed, taking in a literal sense the moderation recommended in the gospel, have adopted the strange fancy of suffering themselves to be massacred or plundered, rather than oppose force to violence. But we need not fear that this error will make any great progress. The generality of mankind will, of themselves, guard against its contagion — happy, if they as well knew how to keep within the just bounds which nature has set to a right that is granted only through necessity! To mark those just bounds, — and, by the rules of justice, equity, and humanity, to moderate the exercise of that harsh, though too often necessary right — is the intention of this third book.

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.⁽¹³⁷⁾

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.¹ Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

A lengthy piece, but necessary, as it sets the bounds and limits for who can and cannot make war. Do note the relegation of those making Private War to the law of nature, which is a much rougher play of liberty that is only given when one is attacked. Those that operate outside of the Public sphere of State to State intercourse and diplomacy in this area are practicing Private War, not Public War, as they consider themselves to be beholden to no one in their assaults on Nations. No matter what the perceived foul, the perceived transgression, the perceived slight by an individual or people, waging war outside the Public sphere is Private War. Self-defense of communities is one, thing, but proceeding, from there, to counter-attack, unless all other forms of civilized protection are no longer available, is something that cannot be done.

This high right of a State is, actually, allowed to the States of the United States if the federal government cannot or will not respond to invasion or threat that will not brook delay as seen in Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This language is a basic restatement of the autonomy of the States within the Union having given to the National government those things to protect the whole of the Union, but still giving those States the right to protect themselves during times of duress or federal neglect. At that point, when National government cannot or will not do its duty, that duty then devolves to the State(s) involved to defend themselves.

In the US system of government, the ability to distinguish between those making Public War and Private War has devolved upon the Commander in Chief with the input of the Congress on the treatment of those waging Public War. In Private War, however, the Laws of War break down as those waging it have no right to do so and are, thusly, outside of the framework of the Nation State system of interaction. This, too, is part of the law of nations view, again from Book III, here distinguishing lawful from unlawful war:

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.⁵ Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.⁶ Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,^(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,⁷ caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war.

This, one would think, is obvious about Nation State conduct and those individuals who move outside of the protection of the law of nations and into the law of nature: they have brought their ends upon themselves willingly. On the battlefield no Congress can or should attempt to break with this view, that those fighting, actively in combat or otherwise attempting to do so and then pass themselves off as mere civilians, are due to any recompense on the battlefield. Their ends are left up to the Commander of the Armies and the Navies, that being the Commander in Chief of the US forces. That singular individual is given play, here, as the Sovereign right of a Nation to deal with such outlaws is paramount for the protection of those soldiers operating by the formal rules of war. This is not only the view of the law of nations but has precedent in the United States. The following is exactly how Abraham Lincoln authorized the US Army to deal with things in the Field Manual - 100, of 1863-81, last reprinted in 1898:

Art. 82.

Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

Do note the language used to distinguish between normal soldiers, due the full treatment of lawful war, and those committing unlawful war. As President Lincoln established this as the law of nations instantiation by his powers of the Admiralty (to distinguish piracy from normal lawful raiders) and that of the Army, he is given the full panoply of determination on land and sea just who is and who is not legitimately waging war against the US. And the summary treatment of highway robbers or pirates, in those days, was no different than the Genevese visited upon those that attacked them unlawfully.

Also note that it is a perfect description of 'terrorist'.

With this we can now form the distinction between those who are 'Revolutionaries' and put on uniform, create government, and are accountable to their activities, from those that are mere insurgents who feel no compunction to be held accountable for anything they do and see themselves as above and beyond all law of man. Congress can create civil law to deal with these individuals, if they are caught outside of the battlefield after joining an organization actively waging Private War on the US. This hard and fast distinction between civil and military law has lasted for centuries and with good reason: it is needed to remove human predators from endangering society.

These definitions now help to define global insurgency as to what its activities will be:

1. The attacking of any State via means of Private War.
2. The attempt to remove the distinction between Public and Private War so as to return mankind to the Law of Nature.
3. Aid given by donation, acquiescence, harboring, aiding, trading or in any way supporting in a physical or monetary way those waging Private War.

This covers immediate military concerns, in point 1, political concerns, in point 2, and their fusion in point 3. These are immediate insurgent views necessary for direct assault on the State system as described by law of nations views. There are also, however, the indirect assaults to weaken or delegitimize the State, and those are usually not just or only military in nature. Also the sorts of attacks are not limited to just externals of States but to the internal workings of them, as in classical insurgency against a State, but carried out as a systemic attack on the law of nations system.

Here the useful paradigm to think about is that promulgated by the 'Greens' groups and parties: "Think Global - Act Local".

The shift to push political systems to direct action is one that is militaristic in bent, if not in direct military support. Indeed, the actual push of 'agendas' may be to weaken or delegitimize State based military groups so as to weaken the defenses of the State for its people. Internally to Nation States, this is a process that seeks to polarize, delegitimize and then shift the power of the State from its normal, accountable, State based system to one that is amenable to the 'action' sought. Normal political based attacks against traditional State military systems then serves the wider purpose of State-to-State intercourse becoming less accountable by the weakening of States, themselves. That shift away from classically described State based systems to one that is pushed to direct action and control by those who have caused the polarization is then one of authoritarianism: by utilizing the push to action to circumvent normal accountability within the State, those seeking to undermine the Nation State system under the law of nations are furthering a non-State, authoritarian system as their outcome.

Classically, these are described as Empires in which a ruling individual or body has direct control over the lives of those within the State and allow only minor and usually ineffective means of feedback. That said, Empires are usually not alone in the world and have other States that they need to act with, thus the basic structure of law of nations re-asserts itself unless that Empire has overwhelming power or capability to over-run or absorb surrounding States. Those forces that seek to delegitimize internal order and accountability to create such an Empire often do not realize that this outcome, in which they will be forced by circumstances to either over-reach or recreate those structures, then puts in charge those least able or capable of shifting that chaos in the position of having to do so.

Classical Empires of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Babylon, and the multiple ones of China, all found that to keep the Empire stable amongst surrounding States (even barbaric ones with rudimentary State concepts) required the creation of internal systems to sustain the Empire, that tended towards direct action and cruelty. No matter how benign the group causing the problems may consider themselves to be, the actual need for a State is to utilize common power to restrict the excesses of society. Those in charge of Empires tend to see even modest dissent as an 'excess' and thus punishable by the State. To create a 'perfect Empire' requires near perfect isolation and no other meaningful State based contacts.

This has only been achieved in a meaningful way in the instances of the Greek Empire under Alexander, multiple instances in China, and Japan during its withdrawal from the world until the arrival of Perry. China, due to its geography, has been able to stage different forms of isolation and create long-lived bureaucracies that then become the true source of sustainment, no matter how much the Sun Emperor is worshipped. After the successful insurgency of post-WWII, China supplanted its traditional, Imperial based system with one that was Communist in name, but Fascistic in design. That traditional bureaucratic State re-asserted itself near instantaneously, and even with the charismatic Mao, it was the bureaucracy that continued on and is now the controlling organization of the State, no matter what the Party itself does. While China has had multiple internal revolts, it has normally taken exterior forces to remove one ruling elite and install another, and no matter who that elite *is* the bureaucratic necessities of the State shift the power from the Elite to the bureaucrat.

The Greek Empire lasted fleetingly under Alexander and, with his death, quickly decayed back to its constituent States. Here the military commanders quickly found themselves overwhelmed by culture and personal power, and those diplomats who had been put aside under Alexander (when not just eliminated) soon found their roles re-instated after his death. The Nations re-arose even if they all did speak Greek for a time, as their ethnic outlooks caused the welds formed by successful military campaigns to fracture under competition between the inheritors of the Empire. Alexander did not have the time nor foresight to create the bureaucracy that China found as necessary to establish internal control and cohesion over varying ethnic groups, so the actual time that the Greek Empire lasted was measured in years, not decades or centuries.

Japan, being an island State, found that its aristocratic class formed a powerful minority far larger in proportion to the peasant population than in Europe. While that class may only have been 1% or so in Europe, in Japan it was approximately 10% and swung that weight around heavily as the aristocracy was greatly militarized to start with. Japan's problem was in the adoption of gunpowder based weapons, and the democratizing effect of them as it takes far less skill to load, aim, shoot, clean and reload a firearm of that era than it did to wield a sword. When the commander of a military expedition in Korea called for more peasantry armed with muskets and no more Bushido, the campaign, itself, was brought back and Japan outlawed firearms as they were far too dangerous to the ruling class to have around. When a barely trained youngster can take down a veteran Bushido with one shot, the power shift had gone unpleasantly against the aristocracy and they would not, as in Europe, accede to this new reality. The centuries of isolation that followed could only happen with an island State able to enforce that isolation and ban trade.

None of these offer useful goals for the modern insurgent, anti-law of nations view, as they each are demonstrably delimiting by events (Alexander's unpreparedness and Geography in the cases of China and Japan) to allow useful replication in an outright form. Thus the modern insurgent must aim to create a global Empire with the necessity of a hard and powerful bureaucracy that, again, shifts control from the hands of the Elite that comes to power to the actual daily functionaries that wield this power. The pathways of computers, robotics and automation do not offer easy solutions to those seeking insurgent ends as these are all labor savings devices in a situation where having too much labor available is a problem. They may try to rely on the Orwellian concept of continual warfare, but they have so delegitimized that in their rise to power, that the actual functioning of the military, itself, comes into question. A shifting to the need of military force during their rise would obviate that, but would also destroy the facade of 'peaceful' and anti-military stances taken during that rise and cause a backlash. The last thing an insurgency wants when it is rising is a new insurgency against *it*, while battling against the COIN of the State(s) involved in trying to retain power.

State based backers of political insurgency against the law of nations and States, then, will garner the following characteristics:

1. They will attack the legitimate use of arms and traditional military systems of the State. In doing this they will utilize any means necessary to counter support for States and claim that support, itself, to be Fascistic in nature even when it is adhering to classical, liberal State based needs.
2. They will attack the legitimate functions of the State in areas relegated to the State at the National level. This will include such things as: diplomacy, commerce, immigration, and defense of the Nation.
3. They will create a 'crisis atmosphere' about problems that cannot be solved, and yet they will call for them to be solved by the State. Thus, in any economic system which has any competition, the outcome is that there will be poor. To end that competition must be ended in the name of 'fairness' and 'equality'. As was done in Soviet Russia and modern China, so, too, will these insurgents call for the increase in State control to meet the exigencies of these 'crises' until the State, itself, becomes the only power allowed to deal with anything, and personal choice and accountability of the State is removed.
4. On State-to-State functions of diplomacy, these insurgents will demand that treaties be seen either as 'worthless' or 'unequal' or that they must be adhered to when they go against the survival of the State. By changing views on the utility of diplomacy to fit immediate needs and 'crises' created by political views, these insurgents wish to demean and eliminate all normal State-to-State means of diplomatic recourse and normalization.
5. On any military attempts to reign in other States, this will be depicted as 'imperialistic', 'fascistic', or 'totalitarian', even when all necessary law of nation safeguards have been satisfied. Because the organizing capacity of the military is both admired and feared, it must be destroyed by these insurgent views so as to remove the only effective organ of State-to-State accountability and engender more 'crises' and then claim that either military solutions are always in need, for those things that cannot be solved by military means, or openly attack those instances where all law of nations views are actually performed and to undermine them at every turn.
6. In matters of trade, no ability of the State to leverage control over trade is supported and all attempts to make trade 'free' of any burdens of the State is supported. In this manner the normal classical liberal means of the State to express societal displeasure or gratitude is ended or undermined, so that trade will no longer serve as a function of State-to-State reciprocity and will always be open to any State no matter how bad or destructive it is.
7. Insurgents will utilize ethnicity as trumping society and Nation, so that the needs of ethnic enclaves, even within States, are seen as 'more legitimate' than the States they are in. This is generally known as 'Balkanization' to fracture and remove traditional State means for societal adherence to a common ethos. By claiming this both within and amongst States, ethnicity is given as the only deciding factor, unless that actually supports a State or set of States, in which case it is decried as 'isolationism' or 'segregationist'.
8. Immigration as the function of States is decried as 'discriminatory' and undermined by both State and international groups seeking to delegitimize the classical, western concepts of the State having power to enforce societal views on who can be naturalized into society and who cannot be accepted. By removing that legitimacy and forcing acceptance, the State is further weakened as a concept, until it can no longer control these things and is seen as illegitimate due to that lack of control.
9. Religion, which as part of the Westphalian view is not to be controlled by the State, is then made into either a controlling State-based view. This is done either by trying to fuse religion with the State or supplanting traditional religions with the State, so that any religious view is automatically a political view. With this no aspect of religious life is outside the purview of the State to control.
10. In all cases where the State is not given control over society, the political view is that the State must have this for general, nebulous 'good reasons' that fit certain 'crises' that are generated ad nauseam so as to justify the authoritarian views of those involved with promoting such 'crises' and views. Thus the 'ends' become the 'means' so that the activity, itself, is the justification for action and nothing higher is seen as legitimate for justifying action.

This listing is not and cannot be exhaustive, as any insurgency is to take up any means necessary to de-legitimize the State based system and the law of nations itself. Treaties are then put as something 'above the State' instead of merely being the contractual acceptance between States that can be broken by any State for classical, western law of nations reasons. In doing this the claim will be that such views are *supporting* these classical views, but then no actual tracing to such things as the law of nation, the laws of war or other such documents will be done and, instead, mere treaties or doctrinal works secondary to these founding works will be seen as primary.

A long-term insurgent campaign must remove these very works from normal public reading and understanding so that the public has little or no understanding of what classical western culture actually is, and can thus be swayed by rhetoric or hyperbole. By only being able to utilize secondary sources or claiming that there is some 'universal' set of rights that is not founded in the law of nature, laws of war and peace, laws of the admiralty, or the law of nations, can an insurgent campaign hope to be successful in the long run.

Further, science is seen as a tool to create society instead as a system of inquiry into the workings of nature. By trying to misplace the tools of physics, biology, chemistry and geology and fitting them into the non-scientific areas of sociology, psychology and politics, can these basic tools of creating a better world be corrupted and seen, then, as a source of ill instead of the creations of man able to ameliorate the problems of nature. Technology, then, becomes something to be decried as harming 'nature' even when the data will show otherwise. By using pseudo-scientific views of 'nature' and society that have no foundation in science but that have the trappings of science, can the insurgency have any hope of removing the few tools of technology and science available to the State for the betterment of its citizens. Here energy generation, in all cases save those supplied by nature directly, be seen as antithetical to the common use of ordinary citizens and any and all attempts to end such utilization must be pushed as ongoing 'crises'. Actual science, itself, is only used as trappings where it supports such views and then politically attacked when it does not do so.

These, then, are the forms of modern insurgency being waged against the classical, law of nations, Nation State system. It contains military parts (Private War going by the concepts of terrorism and piracy), political parts in support of removal of the legitimate State uses to uphold society (via political views such as Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, or anything which generally supports ideology over discourse and action over accountability), and the fusion of the two via 'political wings' of terror groups and 'action wings' of political groups.

This insurgency against the classical, western law of nations system has been brewing in forms of nihilism and totalitarianism for over a century and are now reaching fruition across the board to delegitimize the entirety of the Nation State system and call for global Empire. Those doing such calling have many voices: IslamoFascists, Progressivists of all stripes, those that promote economics as the only end to liberty, and those seeking to push ethnicity and its fusion with identity politics above the commonality of society to have a State. Be it Caliphate, Transnationalist, or Globalist in views, the concept of these being insurgents to the law of nations State based system are just the same. They will distort any text, any idea to reach their goal of a global Empire that will destroy individuality and put a single, ruling view in place of individual views and common accord amongst individuals.

To counter this requires a COIN campaign that counters it in particulars and changes the outlook of society to one that supports accountability and individualism along with the regularity of Nations as upholding the true diversity of societies on the planet.

That will be upcoming in future works.