TBR News May 9, 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C. May 9, 2017: “The death throes of the American print, and television, media are highly entertaining to observe.

For many decades, American public opinion was rigidly directed by a media that was entirely controlled by corporate entities.

A politician deemed by the economic oligarchy as undesirable, was duly trivialized by the media and another politician, known to be friendly to oligarchy needs, was praised.

With the advent of the Internet, all of this began to change and slow though the controlling entities are to change, blogs favorable to their needs were created and praised,

Social networks, so popular with the mindless, were set up under official control so that intimate and personal data on any user was easily available to authority.

Now, the threat to public control poised by the Internet is causing the oligarchy and its minions to feel they ought to take control of it and shut off any dissent that could impinge on their needs and plans.”

Table of Contents

• Putin says WW2 started due to disunity of world’s leading countries, calls on world to unite
• Countries Spending the Most on War
• Germany grants asylum to Turkish military personnel
• Erdogan Blasts Israel, Calls on Muslims to Visit Al-Aqsa: Each Day Jerusalem Is Occupied Is Insult
• Can coastal cities innovate their way out of sea level rise?
• Slow-freezing Alaska soil driving surge in carbon dioxide emissions
• Puerto Rico’s $123 Billion Bankruptcy Is the Cost of U.S. Colonialism
• San Francisco NGO pledges $100mn to fight homelessness
• The New Christian National Socialist Manifesto

 Putin says WW2 started due to disunity of world’s leading countries, calls on world to unite

May 9, 2017

RT

The Nazis were able to start World War II because of the disunity of the world’s leading countries, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated during a Victory Day parade at Moscow’s Red Square, adding that the lessons of the past should not be ignored.

“This horrific tragedy could not be prevented, first and foremost, because of the connivance of the criminal ideology of racial superiority, because of the disunity of the world’s leading countries. This allowed the Nazis to appropriate themselves the right to decide the fate of other peoples, to unleash the most brutal, bloody war, to enslave almost all European countries, putting them at the service of their deadly targets,” the Russian leader said, speaking during the military parade in Moscow marking the 72nd anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945.

According to Putin, the greatness of Victory Day is “defined by the people, by their unprecedented heroic act of saving the Fatherland, and a decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazism.”

“The triumphant victory over this terrible totalitarian force will remain in human history forever as the highest point of the triumph of life and mind over death and barbarity,” he stressed.

“We must remember that the victory was won at the cost of huge, irreplaceable fatalities, that the war took millions of lives,” Putin concluded.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, extremism, and neo-Nazism today, the entire world community should unite, the Russian president noted.

“The lessons of the past war urge us to be vigilant, and the Russian Armed Forces are capable of repelling any potential aggression,” the Russian president said, stressing that “nowadays, life itself requires raising our defense potential.”

“But to effectively combat terrorism, extremism, neo-Nazism, and other threats, consolidation of the entire international community is necessary,” Putin said.

“We are open for such cooperation, and Russia will always be on the side of forces for peace, with those who choose the path of equal partnership, who deny wars as contrary to the very essence of life and human nature.”

The Victory Day parade has concluded on Moscow’s Red Square, where some 10,000 people took part and 114 military vehicles were on display. After attending the festive event, Putin laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier beside the Kremlin walls to honor the fallen soldiers of World War II. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, and other top Russian officials attended the ceremony.

Countries Spending the Most on War

May 1, 2017

by Michael B. Sauter, Evan Comen and Samuel Stebbins

247 Wall Street

The United States spent $611 billion on its military last year, up slightly from about $596 billion the year prior. American military spending dwarfs that of every other nation in the world.. Second-place China spent barely one-third as much on its armed forces.

While it will not likely be surpassed any time soon, U.S. military spending has declined by about 5% over the past decade. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and other major powers have substantially increased spending — China’s spending is up by 118% over the same period.

Based on annual military spending estimates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 15 countries with the largest military expenditure in 2016.

While it is not The United States’ long history of involvement in foreign conflicts helps explain why its military dwarfs that of any other nation. Long considered the world’s policeman, the United States has nearly 800 bases in over 70 countries.

The U.S. spending decline over the past decade has been accompanied with either minimal growth or even decline in spending in a number of Western nations. In the U.K., which at one time was America’s primary ally in the war in Afghanistan, spending fell by 12% over the last 10 years. Several major U.S. allies also spend relatively little compared to the size of their economies. Germany, Japan, and Italy each spent less than 2% of GDP on their military compared to the U.S. expenditure of 3.3% of GDP.

Many of the top military spenders spend disproportional amounts to the size of their economies and populations. The United Arab Emirates, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are each among the top 15 military spenders despite being less populous than most other nations on this list. Neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE are among the 40 most populous nations, and Israel ranks 92nd overall. Each also spends more than 5% of GDP on defense.

Each of these three nations has relatively high GDP per capita, but these nations spend more proportional even to their wealthier economies. Each spends at least 5% of GDP on the military. Saudi Arabia, which has the world’s fourth largest defense budget, spends 10% of GDP on its armed forces. The three are also all in the Middle East — a relatively unstable region that in recent years has been the site of several major wars, uprisings, and insurgencies. The area’s constant conflicts may also explain the need for high spending on military.

To identify the countries countries spending the most on war, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed 2016 military expenditures estimated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in its most recent annual “Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2016” report. Spending as a share of GDP, per capita expenditure, and absolute spending figures for 2016 and 2007 also came from SIPRI. Military expenditure data include all current and capital expenditure on:

• The armed forces, including peacekeeping forces
• Defence ministries and other government agencies engaged in defence projects
• Paramilitary forces, when judged to be trained and equipped for military operations
• Military space activities
• Military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions and social services for military personnel
• Operations and maintenance
• Procurement
• Military research and development
• Military aid (in the military expenditure of the donor country)

These are the countries spending the most on the military.

15. Israel

> Military expenditure: $18.0 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 19.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 5.8%

> Per capita military expenditure: $2,194

Often embattled in military conflict since becoming a country in 1948, Israel is one of the largest military spenders in the world. Military service is mandatory for all Israeli citizens, with three years of service required for men and two for women. Defense spending amounts to 5.8% of Israel’s GDP, one of the largest shares in the world. With a population of approximately 8.4 million, Israel spends more on defense per citizen than nearly any other country. The Israeli defense budget, at $2,194 per capita, is more than any country other than the UAE.

14. UAE

> Military expenditure: $22.8 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 123.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 5.7%

> Per capita military expenditure: $2,504

Despite the decline in oil prices, OPEC member the United Arab Emirates military expenditure continues to increase. The country spent $22.8 billion on defense last year, more than most countries. With a population of 9.2 million, the UAE spends more on defense per citizen than any country in the world, at $2,504 per capita. The nation’s military is largely concerned with border control, intelligence gathering, and the protection of its oil and gas infrastructure. The UAE is also a major American ally and hosts U.S. Air Force operations at its Al Dhafra airbase.

13. Brazil

> Military expenditure: $23.7 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 18.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.3%

> Per capita military expenditure: $113

While Brazil’s military spending increased by 18% from 2007, more recently spending has declined due to worsening economic recession. The ongoing economic impacts of the decline in oil prices continues to force government in Brazil and other oil-exporting national economies to cut spending.

A nation’s military is typically deployed to wield influence outside a country’s borders. In Brazil, however, a relatively large portion of state power has been used in recent years to regain control of favelas — clusters of very low income neighborhoods — from gangs. Like several other large military powers, military service is mandatory in Brazil.

12. Australia

> Military expenditure: $24.6 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 29.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.0%

> Per capita military expenditure: $1,013

Australia has steadily increased its military expenditure over the past decade, with spending rising 29% from 2007 to 2016. The country spent $24.6 billion on defense in 2016 and plans to increase spending further over the next 10 years as well. The increase is largely in response to rising military tensions in the area. In a defense white paper outlining the country’s military strategy, Australian leadership highlighted territorial disputes on the South China Sea and terrorist attacks in Western Europe among the reasons for the buildup. Australia’s defense budget currently amounts to 2% of GDP, one of the larger shares worldwide and in accordance with NATO’s recommended military spending levels. Depending on the country’s GDP growth, Australian defense spending may exceed 2% of GDP in the near future.

11. Italy

> Military expenditure: $27.9 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: -16.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.5%

> Per capita military expenditure: $467

Despite declining by 16% over the past decade, Italian military spending increased by 11% to $27.9 billion in 2016. According to SIPRI, the increase was partly the result of the government’s support of local arms manufacturers through domestic procurement. Italy’s defense budget peaked in 2004, a year after the country first dispatched troops to Iraq.

Today, the Italian military is heavily involved in international peacekeeping efforts in conjunction with the United Nations. The Italian Armed Forces also has a large domestic presence through the carabinieri, the nation’s military police. The country’s defense budget amounts to 1.5% of its GDP, one of the smaller shares among the world’s largest military spenders.

10. South Korea

> Military expenditure: $36.8 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 35.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.7%

> Per capita military expenditure: $729

South Korea spent an estimated $36.8 billion on defense in 2016, up by 35% from 2007. Military spending has steadily increased over the past decade and will likely continue to rise in the coming years as North Korea exhibits increased military aggression. At the end of last year, South Korea approved for 2017 the largest military budget in its history. South Korea’s northern neighbor conducted 25 ballistic missile and two nuclear tests in 2016, and leader Kim Jong-un has explicitly stated his unwillingness to abandon the country’s military buildup. While South Korea spends approximately 2.7% of its GDP on defense, research from Amnesty International East Asia estimates that North Korea, on the other hand, spends an estimated 22% of GDP on its military. South Korea has announced it will increase its defense budget by $8.0 billion over the next five years.

9. Germany

> Military expenditure: $41.1 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 6.8%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.2%

> Per capita military expenditure: $509

Germany has by far the largest economy in Europe, yet ranked third on the continent in military spending in 2016, behind France and the U.K. Germany spends just 1.2% of its GDP on defense, while the U.K. spends 1.9% and France spends 2.3% — nearly double Germany’s expenditure. Germany’s total spending has increased more than other major European powers, however, increasing by 6.8% from 2007 through 2016. Meanwhile, France’s spending rose by 2.8%, and U.K. arms expenditure fell by 12%. Payroll increases do not likely account for Germany’s increased military expenditure. The total number of Germans in the military has plummeted over the past two decades from about 365,000 armed forces personnel in 1995 to 177,300 in 2015.

8. Japan

> Military expenditure: $46.1 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 2.5%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.0%

> Per capita military expenditure: $365

Japan is one of five countries on this list located in Asia and Oceania. High spending in the region is fueled by escalating tensions. Japan is in the midst of a decades-long dispute with China over an uninhabited island chain in the East China Sea. In recent years, Japan has invested in missile and radar technology to counter similar investments made by the Chinese. Japan’s 2017 military budget includes funding five new patrol ships and 200 new maritime law enforcement staff. Japan’s latest military budget also allocates money to its ballistic missile defense system in response to rising threats from North Korea’s nuclear program.

While Japan spends more on its military than all but seven other countries, as a share of GDP Japan’s military expenditure is relatively small. Japan allocates only 1.0% of its GDP on its military, a smaller share than the majority of countries and well below the 3.3% share the U.S. spends.

7. United Kingdom

> Military expenditure: $48.3 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: -12.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.9%

> Per capita military expenditure: $741

Like in Italy and the United States, defense spending in the United Kingdom has fallen over the past decade — the only three countries among the top 15 military spenders where this was the case. U.K. military expenditure fell 12% between 2007 and 2016, reaching $48.3 billion last year — the country’s smallest defense budget since 1999. The U.K. spent 1.9% of GDP on military and faced criticism from some NATO countries for failing to meet NATO’s 2% target. In April 2016, however, the country announced it would increase military spending at 0.5% above inflation annually until 2021 in order to meet the NATO target.

6. France

strong>> Military expenditure: $55.7 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 2.8%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.3%

> Per capita military expenditure: $862

France spent $55.7 billion on defense in 2016. Since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, France has effectively inherited the mantel as EU’s largest military power. The French military has approximately 10,300 personnel deployed overseas, with nearly 6,000 in Africa, about 3,200 in Iraq, and 900 in Lebanon. Since the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the French Armed Forces also increased its domestic presence significantly throughout 2016. The effort, called Operation Sentinelle, placed 10,000 combat troops on French streets, roughly 6,500 of which stationed in Paris. The operation represents the largest French domestic military presence since the Algerian war in the 1960s.

5. India

> Military expenditure: $55.9 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 54.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.5%

> Per capita military expenditure: $42

India’s $55.9 billion military budget is in large part the result of tensions with its neighbor, Pakistan. India’s 2,000 mile border with Pakistan is one of the most dangerous and volatile in the world. Today, the potential for conflict between the two nuclear powers looms incessantly. Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated throughout 2016, culminating in both countries expelling diplomats from their respective nation over suspicions of espionage and an uptick in cross-border shootings.

Not only does India’s military budget eclipses that of all but four other countries, but also the 2.5% share of the country’s GDP allocated to the military is higher than most.

4. Saudi Arabia

> Military expenditure: $63.7 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 20.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 10.0%

> Per capita military expenditure: $1,978

Saudi Arabia spent $63.7 billion on its military in 2016, well above major military powers such as France and Germany, despite having less than half the population of either country. Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthiest nations in one of the least stable regions in the world. Given the number of violent conflicts that have taken place recently — wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, uprisings in Turkey and Egypt, and the emergence of ISIS — the nation has plenty of reasons to beef up military spending. The nation’s total arms expenditure increased by 20% over the past decade.

In 2016, the country’s defense budget accounted for 10% of its GDP, by far the greatest relative expenditure of any countries on this list. The next largest spender relative to economic size on this list is another country in the region Israel, which spends 5.8% of its GDP on defense.

3. Russia

> Military expenditure: $69.2 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 87.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 5.3%

> Per capita military expenditure: $483

Russia’s $69.2 billion military budget accounts for 5.3% of the its GDP, a larger share than all but six other countries reviewed by SIPRI and well above the 3.3% share the U.S. spends. Russia’s 2016 military budget is part of a $360 billion long-term plan, announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2011, to modernize Russia’s military. A historic adversary of the United States, Russia is currently providing military support to Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

Russia is also home to some of the largest defense contractors in the world — including United Shipbuilding Corporation and United Aircraft Corporation — which serve Russia and other nations abroad.

2. China

> Military expenditure: $215.0 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: 118.0%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.9%

> Per capita military expenditure: $156

The Chinese military has exploded in size. The nation’s annual armed forces budget has more than doubled in the last 10 years. The Asian powerhouse spent $215 billion on its military last year, more than the expenditures of India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia combined. The most populous nation in the world, China’s armed forces expenditure is just $156 per capita, which falls below that of nearly every nation on this list. The United States, in contrast, has a budget that is well more than double that of China, but spends roughly 12 times as much per capita. While it is well outspent by the United States, China’s military personnel of more than 2.8 million as of 2015 dwarfs that of the U.S.’s 1.3 million as well as of every other nation. In April, China launched its second aircraft carrier, although the ship will not be fully operational until 2020.

1. United States

> Military expenditure: $611.0 billion

> Pct. change military expenditure, 2007-2016: -4.8%

> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 3.3%

> Per capita military expenditure: $1,886

The United States spent a total of $611 billion on defense in 2016, or 36% of total world defense expenditure. Supporting the largest and most powerful military on the planet, the U.S. defense budget is well more than double China’s $215 billion military expenditure and more than nine times Russia’s $69 billion defense spending.

The United States has 10 operational aircraft carriers, more than any other country by far. According to the Arms Control Association, the U.S. arsenal includes 6,800 nuclear warheads compared to Russia’s inventory of 7,000, and the combined 1,115 warheads of the other seven nuclear-capable countries believed to have stockpiles. U.S. military spending amounts to 3.3% of the national GDP, the lowest level since 2002.

Germany grants asylum to Turkish military personnel

Several Turkish soldiers and their families, all stationed at NATO facilities in Germany, have been granted asylum in a preliminary decision. The German interior ministry is said to have confirmed the reports.

May 8, 2017

by Sertan Sanderson

DW

According to numerous reports in German media, the soldiers in question and their families are Turkish nationals with diplomatic passports who had previously been stationed at NATO facilities in Germany. The military employees had filed for asylum in Germany after facing persecution following the failed coup of July 15, 2016.

The regional state broadcasters WDR and NDR, as well as the daily newspaper “Süddeutsche Zeitung” said that according to the German interior ministry a total of 414 asylum applications had been filed by Turkish soldiers, diplomats, judges and other government officials living in Germany. That number reportedly includes family members.

The interior ministry also divulged that a total of 262 of those applications had come Turkish officials holding diplomatic passports, but it did not say how many of the requests had come directly from Turkish military personnel stationed at NATO bases.

There were no indications on how many of the initial applications exactly had been granted; nor was there any direct comment from the actual government authority in charge of processing asylum applications, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf).

Various media outlets, however, referred to sources from within Bamf as confirming the granting of the asylum applications in numerous cases.

Turkish authorities have launched a massive purge after the coup attempt, which saw thousands of alleged military supporters of US-based cleric Fethullah Gülen incarcerated or dismissed in Turkey, whom the government considers to be the mastermind behind the failed putsch. Gülen and his followers deny these allegations. Last week alone, Turkey fired over 100 judges and prosecutors, and the weekend before, it dismissed nearly 4,000 public officials under the ongoing state of emergency. Over 9,100 police were also suspended on April 26.

Deadline: Turkish referendum

According to the media reports, Bamf officials waited for the outcome of the controversial referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution to take place before making a final decision on the asylum cases. Bamf, however, denied that there was any kind of correlation along those lines.

The result of the referendum narrowly gave Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan new powers consolidated under a presidential system. Critics fear that Erdogan might abuse the new system to further clamp down on dissident voices.

A fraught relationship

Granting asylum to Turkish citizens in Germany could further endanger the already-strained relationship between Turkey and Germany – even if the military officials in this case all have diplomatic passports.

Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Isik publicly demanded in January 2017 that Germany reject all asylum application submitted by Turkish officials, saying that those seeking safe haven in Germany were accused of being part of a terror organization responsible for the failed coup, hinting less than subtly at self-exiled Gülen and his so-called “Hizmet” (service) movement.

Ties between Germany and Turkey plunged during the referendum campaign, with several Turkish ministers coming to Germany and heavily campaigning in favor of passing the plebiscite.

The controversial visits highlighted the many discrepencies between German and Turkish values in Germany’s 2-million-strong Turkish-born population, an issue that is increasingly becoming a political bargaining tool in Germany during this election year.

Relations between the two countries took a further hit with the arrest of a German-Turkish journalist working for Die Welt daily; Deniz Yucel was jailed in February on terror charges and is currently awaiting trial. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Ankara’s arrest and treatment of Yucel was “incompatible with a constitutional state.” Several other dual German-Turkish nationals also remain in detention in Turkey.

Setting a precedent

With more than 7,700 asylum applications received by Turkish nationals in total, Bamf seems to have its work cut out. The decision on granting asylum to the Turkish NATO officials could, however, set a precedent not just in Germany but elsewhere in the EU.

Numerous ex-Turkish military personnel formerly deployed to NATO headquarters in Brussels have filed for asylum in the Belgian capital. They have not managed to get word on the outcome of their cases – so far.

Erdogan Blasts Israel, Calls on Muslims to Visit Al-Aqsa: Each Day Jerusalem Is Occupied Is Insult

Erdogan says Trump shouldn’t move U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

• Compares Israeli policies to apartheid
• Israel: Human rights violators shouldn’t lecture others

May 8, 2017

by Barak Ravid

Haaretz

Israel and Turkey clashed Monday in the most serious incident since the two countries signed a rapprochement agreement in 2016. After Turkish President Erdogan verbally lashed out at Israel’s policy in the West Bank and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Israel responded in an unprecedented manner, accusing the Turkish president of being a serial human rights violator.

Erdogan, who was speaking a conference on Jerusalem in Istanbul, called on Turks and Muslims across the world to visit the Al-Aqsa mosque and voice support of the Palestinian struggle. He said Turkey backs Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation and attributes significant importance to it.

“As a Muslim community, we need to visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque often, each day that Jerusalem is under occupation is an insult to us,” Erdogan said in his speech.

Erdogan also said that Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians in the West Bank is racist, discriminatory and reminiscent of apartheid.

“What’s the difference between the present acts of the Israeli administration and the racist and discriminatory politics that were practiced against black people in the past in America and up until a short time ago in South Africa?” he asked.

The Turkish president also warned the United States not to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He claimed that it would be “extremely ill-advised” and said the move should be abandoned.

“It is not a simple location change. Those who think that way are not aware of how delicate the balance is in the Holy Land,” he said.

Erdogan also blasted a new law that passed in the Knesset two months ago which would restrict the Muslim call to prayer – or muezzin – saying it infringes on religious freedom.

“Why are they afraid of the call to prayer? Are they unsure of their own fate? We do not and will not treat our Jewish citizens like that,” he asked, saying “we won’t allow the muezzin on Al-Aqsa to be silenced.”

‘Baseless slander’

Initially, the Prime Minister’s Bureau was considering not publically responding to Erdogan’s statements, but after his comments were widely reported on in Israeli and international media, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed the Foreign Ministry otherwise.

The response, unprecedented in its severity, took aim at Erdogan personally. “Those who systematically violate human rights in their own country should not lecture and take the moral high ground over the region’s sole real democracy,” Emanuel Nahshon, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said.

“Israel is unequivocally dedicated to preserving religious freedom for Jews, Muslims and Christians – and will continue to do so despite this baseless slander,” he said.

Last July, Israel and Turkey signed a rapprochement agreement that ended the diplomatic crisis the broke out between the two countries in May 2010 following the Turkish flotilla to Gaza. The two continues thawed their diplomatic ties and appointed ambassadors to Tel Aviv and Anakra after five years of only low-level communications.

Since the agreement was signed in 2016, Turkey has not avoided voicing criticism of Israel’s policy towards Palestinians, but Erdogan did hold back his verbal outburst at Israel.

This is the first time in which Erdogan has returned to lashing out at Israel with vehement criticism, reminiscent of the period the two countries ties were at a low. A senior Israeli official noted that at this stage Israel will make do with the response statement to prevent the tensions from escalating into a crisis in the already-sensitive ties with Turkey.

Can coastal cities innovate their way out of sea level rise?

The Dutch are attempting to “climate-proof” their port city of Rotterdam by changing its relationship with water. Other delta cities around the world will also need to innovate if they are to survive sea level rise.

May 9, 2017

by Ineke Mules

DW

For centuries, the Dutch have fought against the sea – and won. True to its name, the Netherlands is located in an extremely flat and low-lying region, with about a quarter of the country below sea level, and about half just 1 meter above.

But as the realities of global warming and predicted sea level rise become more apparent around the world, the Netherlands has earned itself a reputation as a leader in adapting to climate change.

The port city of Rotterdam in particular has garnered international attention recently with its ambitious adaptation strategy, which aims to climate-proof the region by 2025.

Rotterdam is already famous for its mammoth Maeslant storm surge barrier – the largest of its kind in the world. Built in the 1990s, it has the capacity to protect the city from a 10,000-year storm.

Now the city is turning from fighting the water to working with it. Among urban developments planned: A floating neighborhood, already in the works; and a floating dairy farm, expected to be completed by the end of 2017.

The Netherlands isn’t the only country having to come up with solutions to rising sea levels and storm surges.

Sharing knowledge to build resilient cities

Many delta cities around the world are already seriously planning ahead and developing their own “action plans” for the worst-case scenario.

Maarten van Schie, a researcher for spatial analysis and modeling with the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, told DW that the Netherlands is working to export its knowledge to other regions facing similar risks associated with climate change, so they can put their own adaptation strategies in place.

“Cities are becoming increasingly prominent on the international agenda, and more people will live in cities,” he said. The Netherlands has special expertise when it comes to water problems in deltas, he pointed out.

Van Schie pointed to a major disaster in the 1950s, when a large portion of the Netherlands flooded. “We said, ‘we’re never gonna do that again’ … so we made a very strong run to develop the kind of knowledge needed to deal with living in these kinds of risk-prone Netherlands areas.” He said exporting Dutch expertise in this field has definitely been successful.

And the Dutch are not the only ones offering solutions on urban innovation responding to sea level rise. International collaboration between cities facing similar climate change-related risks is becoming increasingly common – notably, the partnership between Copenhagen and New York, where resilience against rising sea levels and cloudbursts is shared at an official level.

Developing regions at greatest risk

However, not all coastal cities have the resources to adapt to the effects of climate change – nor can they all afford to a build a Maeslant-scale infrastructure project to hold back the rising sea.

In many Western delta cities, climate change adaptation tends to work from the top down. In other regions – particularly in developing countries – it is common for politics, bureaucracy or corruption to get in the way of action.

One solution to this problem is the Educational Partnerships for Innovation in Communities Network (Epic-N), an initiative based in the United States that works to connect university students with cities and communities in need of adaptation solutions.

Sean O’Donoghue is manager of the climate protection branch in the environment department in Durban, South Africa. He has partnered with Epic-N in order to tackle climate change in the eThekwini Municipality.

Durban has low levels of development, historical inequality, high levels of poverty, and high levels of vulnerability where people have moved into informal settlements, he explained. “You’ve got to overlay all these existing problems with what climate change is going to bring.”

Durban has benefited from a community-based educational approach, which has worked to inform government officials about the realities of future threats such as sea level rise.

“We want to develop an academic basis for an African development of the landscape, which we hope can be used elsewhere,” said O’Donoghue.

“We use [climate change] as a ticket to improve the lives of our communities.”

Slow-freezing Alaska soil driving surge in carbon dioxide emissions

Northern tundra’s autumn carbon dioxide emissions increased 70% between 1975 and 2015, researchers find, blaming warming temperatures

May 8, 2017

by Oliver Milman

The Guardian

Alaska’s soils are taking far longer to freeze over as winter approaches than in previous decades, resulting in a surge in carbon dioxide emissions that could portend a much faster rate of global warming than scientists had previously estimated, according to new research.

Measurements of carbon dioxide levels taken from aircraft, satellites and on the ground show that the amount of CO2 emitted from Alaska’s frigid northern tundra increased by 70% between 1975 and 2015, in the period between October and December each year.

Researchers said warming temperatures and thawing soils were the likely cause of the increase in CO2 at a time of year when the upper layers of soil usually start freezing over as winter sets in.

In the Arctic summer, the upper level of soil, which sits above a vast sheet of permafrost that covers much of Alaska, thaws out and decomposing organic matter starts to produce CO2. From October, colder temperatures help freeze the soil again, locking up the CO2.

Alaska’s warming autumns and winters are altering this process. Whereas soils 40 years ago took about a month to completely freeze over, the process can now take three months or longer. In some places in the state, the soil is not freezing until January, particularly if there is a layer of insulating snow.

The result is a huge and continuing expulsion of CO2, a planet-warming gas, into the atmosphere. In 2013, a particularly warm year racked by wildfires in Alaska, around 40m more tons of CO2 was given out by soils than absorbed by vegetation – an amount four times larger than that emitted by the state’s use of fossil fuels.

“A lot of models were predicting this thawing would happen, but not for another 50 to 100 years – we didn’t think it would happen this quickly,” said Roisin Commane, researcher at the Harvard John A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and lead author of the report, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The timescale of this surprised many of us,” she said. “There is a lot of potential CO2 from these soils, which worries people. We’d prefer the carbon stays there.”

Commane said the large volume of CO2 released suggested some of it was coming from permafrost. Typically found a meter or so below much of Alaska, permafrost contains carbon that has been frozen for up to 40,000 years. It is being scrutinized by scientists concerned that it is starting to thaw.

It is estimated that Arctic permafrost contains roughly twice as much carbon as the Earth’s entire atmosphere. This means its disappearance would probably contribute to a severe change in the climate that would be dangerous to many species, including humans.

“Some of this CO2 has to come from permafrost thawing but we don’t know how much,” said Commane. “That is something we really want to work out.”

Data for the research was taken from Nasa analysis of CO2 from aircraft and satellites, as well as readings from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration station in Barrow, Alaska.

The Arctic is warming at around twice the rate of the rest of the world and Alaska has experienced three record warm years in a row. In 2016, the average temperature was 5.9F warmer than the long-term average.

“The entire Alaska region is responding to climate change,” said Donatella Zona of San Diego State University in California, who was not affiliated with the study.

“The amount of carbon lost from Arctic ecosystems to the atmosphere in the fall has increased significantly over the past 40 years. By better capturing these cold season processes and putting previous smaller-scale measurements into a bigger context, this study will help scientists in their efforts to improve climate models and predictions of Arctic climate change.”

Puerto Rico’s $123 Billion Bankruptcy Is the Cost of U.S. Colonialism

May 9 2017

by Juan González

The Intercept

Last week Puerto Rico officially became the largest bankruptcy case in the history of the American public bond market. On May 3, a fiscal control board imposed on the island’s government by Washington less than year ago suddenly announced that the Puerto Rico’s economic crisis “has reached a breaking point.” The board asked for the immediate appointment of a federal judge to decide how to deal with a staggering $123 billion debt the commonwealth government and its public corporations owe to both bondholders and public employee pension systems.

The announcement sparked renewed press attention to a Caribbean territory that many have dubbed America’s Greece. The island’s total debt, according to the control board, is unprecedented for any government insolvency in the U.S., and it is certain to mushroom quickly if no action is taken. Detroit’s bankruptcy, by comparison, involved just $18 billion — one-ninth the size of Puerto Rico’s.

Within days, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, acting under a provision of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (known as PROMESA), which was enacted last June, appointed federal judge Laura Taylor Swain from the southern district of New York to take over the Puerto Rico case. A former bankruptcy court judge who was appointed to the federal court by President Clinton, Swain famously presided over the long criminal trial of employees of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.

Few press reports on Puerto Rico’s troubles, however, have bothered to examine the deeper issues behind this crisis.

First, the colonial relationship that has prevailed between the U.S. and Puerto Rico since 1898 is no longer viable. Puerto Rico is the largest overseas territory still under the sovereign control of the United States, and it is the most important colonial possession in this nation’s history. That relationship produced uncommon profits for American subsidiaries on the island for more than a century, even as the federal government kept claiming that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, created in 1952, was a self-governing territory.  But now, with a Washington-appointed board directly overseeing the island’s economy, and with a pivotal Supreme Court decision last year affirming that Congress continues to exercise sovereign power over Puerto Rico, the mask of self-governance has been removed.

The old commonwealth is effectively dead. Absent a huge infusion of U.S. public dollars to prop up its collapsing economy, a scenario that is nearly impossible with a Trump White House and a Republican-controlled Congress, that relationship cannot be revived. Political leaders in both Washington and San Juan, whether they like it or not, are being propelled to fashion a new political and economic status for the territory. They will have to finally decide whether to completely annex Puerto Rico as the 51st state or acknowledge that it still remains a distinct nation, with the right its own sovereignty and independence.

Second, the impact of Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy will continue to reverberate throughout the U.S. bond market, far more than most Wall Street analysts have so far acknowledged. The PROMESA control board has warned that even with massive cuts to government services and new projected revenues from higher taxes and fees, Puerto Rico will still generate slightly less than $8 billion in budget surpluses over the next ten years, when some $35 billion in debt service comes due. In other words, three-quarters of the debt cannot be repaid. That is not just a haircut for bondholders; it is a head-shaving, one that will send shock waves throughout the municipal bond market. After all, bonds backed by the full faith-and-credit of local government entities have long been considered among the safest of investments.

Years of court battles between Puerto Rico and contending groups of creditors are now certain. “The economy of Puerto Rico will be put on hold for years,” Andrew Rosenberg, adviser to the Ad Hoc Group of Puerto Rico General Obligation Bondholders, told the Associated Press. “Make no mistake: The board has chosen to turn Puerto Rico into the next Argentina.”

The Debt Is Not Payable

Civil society groups contend that the plunder of the Puerto Rican people through predatory and even illegal bond deals that island politicians concocted together with top Wall Street firms will now be exposed.

Amazingly, the 23-page petition that the federal government’s own financial control board filed in U.S. District Court in San Juan reached the exact same conclusion that Puerto Rico’s former governor Alejandro García Padilla reached back in June 2015 — that the island’s debt is “not payable.”

In the nearly two years since García Padilla sounded the alarm, however, Washington has done almost nothing to alleviate the economic catastrophe afflicting 3.4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, except to establish the control board by enacting PROMESA.

On an island that has lost 10 percent of its population in the last ten years, where 46 percent of the population lives below the U.S. poverty level, where the unemployment rate is more than 11 percent, and where the labor force participation hovers around 40 percent, lawmakers in Congress have kept insisting on greater austerity from Puerto Rico’s population. The reality is such dire conditions would never be tolerated among U.S. citizens in any other jurisdiction, yet they are allowed to persist in Puerto Rico.

During the past two years, the commonwealth government has sharply raised electricity and water rates. It has increased the sales tax (now a value added tax) to 11.5 percent. It has proposed ending all pensions for new workers and cutting existing benefits by an average of 10 percent. And last week, it announced the closing of 179 public schools for the coming school year. In addition, the control board has called for a $450 million cut over the next four years to the island’s 70,000-student public university.

Under the control board’s pressure, Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, who took office in January, is eyeing the privatization of the government-owned electric company, of the water and sewer authority, even of the public transit system. But even massive cuts and selling off public assets can’t solve the problem that there aren’t enough jobs on the island, that young people keep fleeing to the United States, and that Puerto Rico’s government is powerless to fashion its own economic and trade policy independently from the U.S.

For decades, Puerto Rico was important to the American economy as a center of sugar cane growing, then as a tax haven for manufacturing and pharmaceutical companies, and as a military stronghold and bulwark against the spread of communism in Latin America. But now it is no longer needed for any of these things. Most of the U.S. military bases have closed, and Congress began in 1996 to phase out the island’s tax haven status. As soon as the last of the federal tax breaks — known as Section 936 — ended in 2006, corporations started leaving and the island plunged into a recession from which it has yet to recover. For the past 20 years, a succession of island governments has been closing structural operating deficits with borrowed funds supplied by Wall Street firms eager to market its triple tax-exempt bonds to wealthy and middle-class Americans and Puerto Ricans.

Investors were especially drawn to a provision of the Puerto Rico constitution that required the government to pay general obligation debt service ahead of any other expenses, and by the fact that Puerto Rico and its public corporations were legally prevented from resorting to Chapter 9 bankruptcy, the portion of the bankruptcy code that applies to most local governments and municipalities.

Until 1978, Congress had included all the territories and possessions of the United States under Chapter 9, so Puerto Rico had bankruptcy protection until then. But between ’78 and the early ’80s, there were several changes to U.S. bankruptcy law. In 1984, an amendment was inserted into the law by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond that specifically excluded Puerto Rico from Chapter 9. No reason was given. No federal policy or interest in the change was spelled out in the amendment process. By a few simple phrases in an amendment that few people noticed, Congress laid the basis for the unique situation Puerto Rico confronted last year. It was not only broke, there was no established legal recourse for it to get a court to decide how its many creditors would get paid or how much.

The PROMESA bill Congress enacted at least created a new type of Chapter 9-like process for the island. The bill stipulates that if the Puerto Rican government and the control board cannot reach voluntary settlements with bondholders, a judge can be appointed and creditors forced to accept a settlement, known as a “cram-down.”

But the law’s constitutionality has yet to be tested, and with so much money at stake the various groups of bondholders are determined to wage a titanic legal battle against it.

On May 5, for instance, Ambac Assurance Corp, one of the major insurers of Puerto Rico bonds, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico against the Commonwealth and the Oversight Board, and did so with uncommonly strident language:

Sovereignty confers great power, but it does not authorize lawlessness. This action seeks to halt the latest in a series of unconstitutional and unlawful acts that have been the unfortunate modus operandi of the Commonwealth government in seeking to manage its financial and economic distress. Instead of rectifying these abuses, the Oversight Board created by Congress to restore fiscal responsibility to the Commonwealth has affirmatively exacerbated them, giving its imprimatur to an ongoing scheme of constitutional and statutory violations that can only be called theft.

Ambac has insured billions of dollars in sales tax revenue bonds, known as COFINA bonds, that Puerto Rico has issued since 2006, and the company, along with other bond insures, faces enormous losses from any cram-down.

Meanwhile another group of bondholders who were involved in $1.4 billion of Puerto Rico’s last major general obligation bonds, issued in 2014, filed suit in New York State Supreme Court. Those bondholders, led by hedge funds Aurelius Capital Management and Monarch Alternative Capital, insist that Puerto Rico’s Constitution requires them to be paid first from all available revenues. The general obligation bondholder group, along with many civil society groups, insist that all the COFINA bonds — and they represent nearly $18 billion of the total $74 billion bond debt — were illegally issued and should not be repaid.

That’s because the Puerto Rico constitution specifically forbids debt service and principal that surpasses more than 15 percent of annual government revenues. The Puerto Rico legislature specifically created COFINA to maneuver around that 15 percent limit, and it then guaranteed the payment of that debt from sales tax revenues. But the legality of that maneuver has never been tested in court.

While the contending bondholder groups battle in the courts, the PROMESA board has now sided with the Puerto Rico government that bondholders will have to accept major reductions in payments.

“From current revenues, the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities cannot satisfy their collective $74 billion debt burden and $49 billion pension burden and pay their operating expenses,” the fiscal control board concluded last week after months of poring over Puerto Rico financial records.

And the island’s budgetary crisis “is about to worsen exponentially,” the control board warned, “due to the elimination of approximately $850 million in Affordable Care Act Funds in fiscal year 2018.” The total loss of federal health care funds, according to the board, is expected to reach $16 billion over the next ten years. On top of that, the government pension systems are almost out of cash and will need $1.5 billion a year just to keep up payments to current retirees. Unlike municipal workers in the U.S., most public employees in Puerto Rico are not part of the social security system, so those pensions are their only retirement income.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress insist there will be no bailout of Puerto Rico, no extra federal assistance to the island’s population.

They want to ignore the fact that back in the 1990s under Bill Clinton and the New Gingrich Congress, Washington’s leaders realized they had to take drastic measures to save the District of Columbia from economic collapse. Congress established a fiscal control board just as it has with Puerto Rico.

But that board soon concluded that DC had structural problems that required federal help. In 1997, a reform package accomplished the following: the federal government assumed the city’s debts, it took responsibility for the local courts and prisons, it increased the rate for Medicaid reimbursements to the district, and it took over the city’s underfunded employee pensions.

As a result, the district emerged from economic calamity. Today it is a vibrant and prosperous city.

Federal lawmakers will either have to provide massive assistance to Puerto Rico, or they will have to move rapidly to change the island’s political and economic status. After a century of colonial rule by Washington and decades of predatory debt from Wall Street, the bill has come due.

San Francisco NGO pledges $100mn to fight homelessness

May 9, 2017

RT

A poverty-fighting non-profit organization has pledged to raise $100 million to reduce “chronic homelessness” in San Francisco by half over the next five years, saying it’s “unacceptable” that thousands are living on the streets in such a prosperous region.

Tipping Point Community, the San Francisco-based organization, said it will use the money to create new housing units, improve aid to vulnerable groups, such as people with mental illness, and enhance the capacity of the public sector.

The group has so far raised $60 million towards achieving this goal. The $100 million challenge will be the largest amount of private money raised to address homelessness in San Francisco’s history.

“It’s time for an all-hands on deck approach — the public and private sectors must work together in a new way,” Daniel Lurie, Tipping Point’s CEO and founder, said in a statement.

“It is unacceptable that in a region with such creativity, wealth, and generosity that thousands of people are living on the streets. Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis, and the issue of our time,” he stressed.

Anyone who has stayed on the street for over a year and has a mental or physical disability is “chronically homeless,” Tipping Point Community says, adding that on any given night in San Francisco some 2,000 people fit that description.

There are currently nearly 7,000 homeless people in San Francisco, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, released in November.

But while according to the AHAR report individual homelessness nationwide in the US declined by 14 percent between 2007 and 2016, San Francisco’s homeless population increased from 5,823 in 2010 to 6,996 in 2016.

City authorities say there’s no simple, quick-fix solution to the problem.

“There is no silver bullet to solve the complex issue of homelessness,” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said in a statement.

“We want new ideas to address this issue, and must tackle it from all angles. Tipping Point is bringing enormous private sector resources to help the City expand programs proven to be successful in moving people off the streets and connecting them with resources they need.”

Some say homelessness has to be addressed from the right angle.

The Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP), created to “expose and eliminate the root causes” of civil and human rights abuses of poor and homeless people, says the biggest challenge is to “hold the federal government responsible for restoring affordable housing funding and protecting poor and homeless people’s rights.”

WRAP head Paul Boden said the $100 million donation to the city of San Francisco may well fail to address the key problem, that of chronic federal divestment from providing low-income housing.

“It’s going to be three years and the problem still won’t be dealt with and we’ll just go on calling it intractable,” Boden told the Guardian.

He also voiced concerns that families and youngsters would be left out because they are not part of the chronic homeless population.

“You don’t see youth on the street; you don’t see families. They’re hidden,so they don’t get services,” he said.

The New Christian National Socialist Manifesto

May 1, 2017

by Oral Shockley, DD

The New Christian Journal

To Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Greetings!

It is with glowing pride that we contemplate the growing control and spiritual influence of True Christians in establishing strict control of the American political and educational realms. America was founded in 1620 by Religious Dissenters, True Christians, who fled from secular persecutions in England. They set up a religious community in Plymouth Bay and flourished greatly. But in subsequent years, America drifted away from her True Christian origins and became a nest of Secularism. Americans have turned away from the One True God to worship Mammon and materialism! Self-indulgence has replaced self-discipline and the cell phone has replaced Our Lord Jesus Christ in daily importance! But rejoice in your hearts because the True Disciples of Christ have organized to save America from Secular Humanism and hedonism and we are now at the very gates of the True Kingdom of Heaven on earth! The True Disciples have begun their Sacred Mission by gaining virtual control over the Republican Party in almost every state in the Union, have elected a President of our One True Faith, have filled the halls of Congress with Representatives of both the people and Christ the Lord! We are well on our way to reestablish the True Christian nation, under God Almighty, that was founded in 1620.

The Politics of God

We Christians stand closer now to establishing a truly Christian-based government in this country since 1620!

By faith and determination, we have placed many of our people into the ranks of the Republican Party; have organized local elections to put our members on vital school boards where they can, and have, successfully supplanted the false Darwinism with the Divinely Inspired Biblical Creationism. We have elected members to serve in Congress who are sensitive to our needs and wishes but we need far more in order to establish a firm majority.

Since 2001 dozens of True Christians, by Presidential order have been placed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress. Three years later God-sent Bush Administration has established one of the most righteous sexual health agendas in the Western world.

As one example of the growing power of the Lord in American politics, the Texas Republican Party Platform for 2002, called for rescinding United States membership in the United Nations and removing the United Nations from US soil. Pat Robertson, in his book, “The Millennium”, depicts the United Nations as a Satanic plot to take control of the world. And in the LaHaye “Left Behind” books, we can see that the United Nations is firmly in the hands of the anti-Christ!

Herewith we present our Watchwords and our Credo to you for your guide and inspiration.

1.Rule the world for God!

2.Give the impression that you are there to work for the Republican party, not push an ideology.

3.Hide your strength.

4.Don’t flaunt your Christianity.

Our Credo is:

Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government.

Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents. The civil ruler is to be a servant of God, he derives his authority from God and he is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.

The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

In confronting Secular Humanists and Satanists, we must realize that it is vital to stress the following Proclaimed Truths:

1. The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallible and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
2. Special creation of the existing space-time universe and all its basic systems and kinds of organisms in the six literal days of the creation week.
3. The full historicity and perspicuity of the biblical record of primeval history, including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse of the creation, and worldwide cataclysmic deluge and the origin of nations and languages at the Tower of Babel.

Brother Pat Robertson said in 1992,

“We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians…”

Ralph Reed said in 2001,

“You’re no longer throwing rocks at the building; you’re in the building.”

Once dismissed as a small regional movement, Christian conservatives have become a staple of politics nearly everywhere. Christian conservatives now hold a majority of seats in 36% of all Republican Party state committees (or 18 of 50 states), plus large minorities in 81% of the rest, double their strength from a decade before.

Active Christian Conservatives who are obedient to Almighty God and his Commandments in the United States Senate are:

Bill Frist, TN, Mitch McConnell, KY, Rick Santorum, PA, Bob Bennet, UT, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, TX, Jon Kyle, AZ, George Allen, VA, Richard Shelby, AL, Zell Miller, GA, Sam Brownback, KS, Sen. Lindsey Graham, SC

These True Christians deserve our heartfelt thanks and our continued support, both fiscal and personal.

The twin surges of Christians into GOP ranks in the early 1980s and early 1990s have begun to bear fruit, as naïve, idealistic recruits have transformed into highly proficient operatives and leaders, building organizations, winning leadership positions, fighting onto platform committees, and electing many of our own to public offices at all levels of American governance.

Christians need to take leadership positions. Since Republican Party officers control the membership and our legislative bodies, it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.

One of our brilliantly successful tactics in gaining control of Republican organizations is to tie up the meetings for hours until people left. Then we appointed ourselves leaders and make key decisions. Once we took over the local leadership throughout our target State, we can then control the state party apparatus. Once we have a target state under Christian control, we can then use the same tactics in other states until we build a solid Christian foundation that can control any election, state or national.

The strategy of the coming Christian Based Republican Party is simple.

First, enact a permanent tax cut which will eliminate $6 trillion in revenue over the next 20 years. This will in effect starve the federal government so it will be unable to fund many liberal and essentially anti-Christian governmental functions instituted since the Communist-inspired New Deal.

Second, fill the liberal and secular federal judiciary with Christian advocates whose judicial philosophy will reverse the disastrous trends on civil rights, environmental protections, religious liberty, reproductive rights and privacy and so much more.

Third, mandate the teaching of Divine Creationism in all public and private schools and remove from all school curriculums the Secular Humanist false theories of Darwin and others.

Fourth, revise the Federal Constitution so that it better reflects Divine Will and strips away false secularism entirely.

A Constitution that conforms to Biblical Law will rely on the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament as its guiding source. Therefore, the Ten Commandments hold a special meaning. The New Christian lawmakers are going to pass legislation in various state legislatures that will mandate government posting of the Ten Commandments in all public buildings.

Rev. Joseph Morecraft is pastor of the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Marietta, Georgia and he states his belief in the persecution of nonbelievers and those who are insufficiently orthodox is crystal clear. Reverend Morecraft describes democracy as “mob rule,” and states that the purpose of “civil government” is to “terrorize evil doers. . . to be an avenger!” and “To bring down the wrath of God to bear on all those who practice evil!”

“And how do you terrorize an evil doer?” he asks. “You enforce Biblical law!” The purpose of government is “to protect the church of Jesus Christ,” and, “Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol!” “There is no such thing” as religious pluralism, he declared. Further, “There has never been such a condition in the history of mankind. There is no such place now. There never will be.”

“When God brings Noah through the flood to a new earth, He re-establishes the Dominion Mandate but now delegates to man the responsibility for governing other men in order to protect human life. He does this by instituting capital punishment – the backbone of civil government.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Now let us begin with some realistic soul-searching. Let us define the purposes and directions of our ranks for, although we may see the same Enlightenment in different ways, in the end, we are all True Christians.

A definition of the True Christian membership:

The implementation of Biblical Law is central to the mission of building the Kingdom of God on earth. The way to get to Biblical Law is through politics. Therefore, God’s law as manifested in the Bible should govern. References to the Ten Commandments are more than symbolic. It reflects a belief that the Bible, not the Constitution, represents the final legal authority.

1) The federal government should recede into the background through massive tax cuts. This concept, heartily embraced by President Bush, has more than one benefit. As money available for corrupting so-called “entitlements” dries up, there will not be funding for welfare leeches, birth control programs, support for the army of illegal aliens now flooding out country and the notorious Social Security give-aways.

2) Churches should be mandated to take over responsibility for welfare and education by Faith-based initiatives and school vouchers. By these means, True Christians can establish a firm control over the education of American youth. We can, and will, instill Christian Values in our youth and by this means insure a growing body of young Christians, ready, willing and able to assume leadership positions in a Christian United States.

3) Capitalism is the sole reason that America is now the greatest nation on earth and the Christian Community firmly believes that this engine of national success and power should be freed of current regulations that harmfully restrict America’s major corporations in achieving their maximum growth potential. We are therefore opposed to so-called “environmental” rules and regulations, restrictive and repressive work safety regulations, involvement by the Federal government in civil rights matters. We must first and foremost introduce and secure legislation to halt devastating personal injury lawsuits against Corporate America.