Chaos is not Liberty

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

The other day I had an interesting conversation with a few individuals, some of whom I knew, while others who joined in were perfect strangers. Comments originally were the result of an article exposing the dangers of radioactive materials being discharged into the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima Nuclear Plant disaster that occurred on March 11, 2011. From that original comment thread sprang other tangents of conversation which rambled into societal issues far from the ecological disaster in Japan when their nuclear reactors were damaged by a tsunami.

I pointed out that environmentalist were more concerned with Anthropomorphic (man made) global warming and CO2 emissions than the greater threat to mankind caused by the entire Pacific Ocean being contaminated with nuclear material. Perhaps my calling environmentalists ‘whack jobs’ for having bought hook, line and sinker into the man made global warming hoax set off a chain of comments.

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”, attributed to Mark Twain.

This appears to be a truism of the first order, at least as far as man made global warming and the environmental movement is concerned. Billions, if not trillions of dollars have been put into play, supposedly to save the planet from man made global warming. The problem is, and please don’t get too upset; I’m only the messenger, mankind’s role in global warming or cooling is minimal at best. The factors involved in Earth’s cyclic climate changes are far more involved.

Computer generated modules, contaminated data or out right fabrications and falsehoods presented as if they were facts have been foisted on the public in order to support a ‘consensus of scientists’ and world leaders driving home an agenda which for the most part appears to be politically motivated rather than scientifically justified.

Anthropomorphic, the word alone makes intellectually minded elitists get goose bumps just hearing themselves say it. Anthropomorphic; oh, I’m so much smarter than the average lunch box carrying dolts who punch a time card in the slot.

The fact remains, Earth hasn’t shown any sign of warming for well over the past decade while CO2 measurement data would indicate, at least according to the junk science of environmentalists, that our species and most living organisms should have been roasted by now. Any major alterations in Earth’s climate cycles would appear to spring from other sources; like the sun, El Nino ocean currents, cosmic activity from the far reaches of the universe bouncing off clouds, volcanic surface activity as well as under sea volcanic activity along with other issues which we are just now being able to figure out and which play major roles in global climate trends.

Short of total all out nuclear war it would seem almost insignificant what mankind does in affecting long term climate change. The Earth has incredible healing properties which negate nearly all short term screw ups by mankind.

I’ve gone a long way around to get to the next issue; my apologies for rambling.

A dear young woman wrote her comment, taking a tangent away from doom and gloom towards a more pleasant thought, “I always thought it’d be fun to live on a commune”. I added a short correction to the thought process, “I always thought it’d be fun to live on a commune if it were my choice rather than being enslaved in one”.

If you think about it, wouldn’t we all like to live in our own Shangri-La, a perfect community where everyone gets along, everyone is equal, no need for police or courts to settle disputes because peace and tranquility are in abundance? Okay, back to reality; but that was a nice distraction.

A link had been provided showing the work of Alex Hartley who creates habitats in inhospitable landscapes. Upon looking up Alex Hartley as a Google search I ran across a new country created for folks looking for Shangri-La, the perfect commune if you will, Nowhereisland.

“Nowhereisland is a Situations project led by artist Alex Hartley, one of 12 Artist Taking the Lead projects for the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad funded by Arts Council England. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of the University of the West of England, Bristol; Bloomberg; Nicky Wilson Jupiter Artland; the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Royal Norwegian Embassy and Yellowbrick Tracking.”

These folks put together a constitution for self governance which they say isn’t ‘set in stone’; rather, it’s always a digital work in progress. It took a while; but I went over some of this free form set of rules and found it to be utterly chaotic and far from settling, full of contradictions and generalities which could be interpreted to mean anything to anyone.

There was one entry, “We will strive for peace. If war should arise, only those who vote for it will fight – including politicians” followed later by another, “War is not an option.” Then there is the focus on the value of life, “Death penalty violates the right to life and therefore is forbidden” with another constitutionally ambiguous issue, “The right to abortion”; nothing more stated, just “The right to abortion”. There were noble thoughts, “All people are of equal, inestimable worth, and are to be treated as such”; but I guess unborn children don’t qualify.

The Nowhereisland community, for lack of a better term, has no rule of law and eventually must fail because individuals depend on certain rules being written in stone, rules which don’t change with the winds or as the tides come and go.

I’ll return to the statement, “I always thought it’d be fun to live on a commune”, as it hints toward yet another sinister process, communism; a government which imposes its will on everyone and where individual’s have no inherent rights, only entitlements which are rewarded by the state and just as easily revoked.

Here in the United States of America we have a Constitution along with an enumerated Bill of Rights which, while not set in stone, provides a platform from which individuals might more easily recognize inherent rights or natural rights from entitlements.

Individual rights are defined in order to insure they are protected from infringement by local, state or federal entities because they are recognized to have been in existence prior to the formation of the governing body, a government body created to protect these rights. There is a marked difference between natural or inherent God given rights from entitlements which are either granted to or revoked by that government which they have formed.

This led into yet another discussion which cropped up in the comment thread, one having to do with whether or not it was important to be a religious person. When the tangent started going down this path I had to wonder, what purpose does it serve to ask if a person involved in supplying facts about environmental issues or world wide redistribution of wealth was attached to any particular religion or religion in a general sort of way. Apparently some folks consider this paramount to assessing the value of facts which run contrary to their own beliefs.

I had left a link to Rosa Koire’s work on Agenda21, actually a Google search with multiple options for further investigation, which indicated the United Nations Agenda 21 was part of the world wide scheme to redistribute wealth. I figured since this new comer to the comment section had disregarded the conservative sources used to verify my facts that instead I’d point him towards someone from his own progressive leaning community; let’s just say the link was ignored.

I’ve come to the conclusion that some folks would prefer to be uninformed or misinformed rather than admit they’d been fooled. Either way Mark Twain’s wisdom has lasted beyond his mortality.

Our Constitution with its enumerated Bill of Rights points the way to individual liberty and, if followed, provides ample protection for individual rights, even from a majority because these rights are not granted by government, they are and always have been the right of individuals long before the idea of government or self governance came to be.

Having set these issues to paper, not necessarily writing them in stone; but setting them apart as important foundations of society, a rule of law if you will; makes them important to the survival of society. In our constitutional republic rights cannot be voted away from an individual, not even by a majority of his fellow citizens because the rights of which I speak existed prior to the formation of the government, a government which uses votes to advance other ideas.

Am I a religious man, Yes; I gladly admit that my faith in God has permitted me to understand the importance of eternal truths which are the foundation of our country. I’m blessed with the knowledge that my Father in Heaven choose men of great intellect and character to bring about the founding of our country. These men used their powers of thought and were guided by the Spirit when they wrote our founding documents.

When I hear folks claim they wish to live in a commune a place where peace and self fulfillment can be achieved by anyone and everyone but without the rule of law or folks deride others simply because they hold sacred issues as important, I hear the folly of such ineptitude. There can be no liberty where chaos reigns in place of the rule of law.


It’s Not “Just” Attack with Gas

Arlene from Israel

The “just” is being employed advisedly, of course. But the fact of the matter is that there is more than one horrendous way for Assad to attack civilians associated with rebel forces.

This past Thursday, information came out from Syria via BBC journalists that was picked up by very few news sources. I would have thought it would have been screamed from the rafters, but either it is “ho hum” or is simply running under the radar.

My betting is that you haven’t heard about this:

It was the end of a school day in the north of Syria, and, reportedly, a fighter jet overhead flew back and forth looking for a target (i.e., place where a group of people is assembled). The one the pilot decided upon was the yard of a high school, where groups of teenagers just dismissed from a day at school were lingering.

What he dropped on the kids was some sort of “napalm-like” incendiary bomb that caused horrendous burning. Ten young people were dead and many more injured, “writhing in agony.”

The aftermath of the attack was filmed.

The BBC link is here although I advise you not to look at the video portion unless you have a strong stomach.


Credit: BBC PanoramaCredit: BBC Panorama


The “fighter jet” wasn’t identified by the BBC journalists as belonging to Assad’s forces, but certainly it did. The rebel forces don’t have fighter jets. The location of the attack, an area where those supporting the rebel forces are found, makes this even more clear. According to the Independent (UK) the attack took place in Aleppo.


It is only days ago that there were Americans saying that the military warning to Assad to stop using gas had to be delivered soon because there was fear of another gas attack, with the most likely target Aleppo.


After I viewed the video, I confess that I responded viscerally: My first thought was that Assad’s head had to be bombed off. Of course that probably would not be possible because he’s hiding in a bunker.

I make no apology for that initial emotional response to such gross and shocking inhumanity. But, in short order, I began to think more rationally again, with regard to the wisdom — within the full context of the situation — of taking the Assad regime down. There are a lot of people calling for this — not because of the incendiary bomb, but for broader reasons regarding a weakening of Iran.

What has shocked me is how little the world has paid attention to this latest attack by the Assad regime. Evidence seems clear in the video, but if further confirmation is required, let journalists begin to investigate.

And here I would suggest that you, my readers, can be a vehicle for spreading the word of the reports on what is going on.

If you cannot definitively say, “Assad’s air force dropped an incendiary bomb that burned young people to death,” although there is an exceedingly good likelihood that this is precisely what happened, then you can say just that: There is a good likelihood of this having happened as reported, and it’s important for people to know, to pursue the matter, and to raise their voices loudly.

For the record, use of an incendiary bomb is forbidden by international law, on a humanitarian basis. I’ve checked this with an international lawyer. Alan Baker, my frequent “go to” on such issues. As I said, it’s not “just” gas.

Use the BBC link, or the Independent link, or both, for confirmation. Put this up on websites, and on discussion groups, and ask why the world is not responding with horror.


Equally shocking to me (I suppose I should no longer be shocked but I haven’t learned to move past this) is how brazen Assad is. Defying all norms established by the international community with regard to humanity, he proceeds blithely even as he knows he is being watched.

He is thumbing his nose at the world, confident that he can proceed without paying a price.

And this is precisely why he must pay a price.


Now to Barak Obama, and his statement last night.

I make a public confession. For one fleeting moment, after I heard that he was going to address the American people, I imagined that he was going to say that there had been sufficient justification for action in Syria in any event, but now with evidence of an attack on young people with an incendiary bomb, the case is even stronger.

Silly me… I was quickly brought back to the reality: Obama is a coward who has made a fool of himself.


According to unattributed sources within the administration, Obama’s turn-around on speedy action in Syria was made unilaterally at the last moment. Advisers gathered expecting to discuss details of the attack, only to be told that the plans had changed. Understand that he is not surrounded by advisors we would call “right wing” or “hawks.” And yet they were on board for moving on Syria.

According to the Wall Street Journal, which carried this story, Obama’s change of mind was facilitated by reassurance he received from chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, who said that the timing of the attack did not matter: Whether strikes were launched tomorrow, or a week from now, or a month from now, the military would be able to ensure the effectiveness of the operation. he reportedly maintained.


I take strong issue with Dempsey on this. What he is saying — if indeed he said this as reported — is akin to nonsense. Already too much time has elapsed, and too much has been said by the president.

There are reports of military equipment being moved in Syria away from the places the US is most likely to attack. Reuters, for example, reported on some missiles and launching equipment being moved from a key military site last week as a “precautionary measure”:


Other reports have alluded to precautionary troop movements.

What is worse, there are multiple reports of prison inmates being moved by bus, by the thousands, to those sites most likely to be targeted — to serve as human shields. This is also in defiance of international law.

See, for example: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/syria-human-shields-president-assad-2237439

And Dempsey maintains that the timing is irrelevant here?


Obama’s reluctance to act against Syria has been evident from the start, whatever the surface bravado of his words. He has now surrendered to that unease — which was exacerbated by the negative response of the British Parliament and Cameron’s subsequent pull out.

He has fallen back on the excuse that it will be more of a “democratic” process if he permits Congress to debate the issue and then vote on it. (Obama: the champion of democratic process.) For the record: this is not required of him by law, as he is not declaring war on Syria; there is ample precedent for the sort of action he was supposed to take.

Congress is not scheduled to re-convene after its summer recess until the 9th of September. That is when the debate will begin; who knows when the vote will be held.

There is mixed opinion here: Is Obama hoping that the Congress will vote against, so that he is off the hook? Or is he looking for support so that he isn’t going it alone? He says he intends to attack Syria eventually; but if Congress is opposed?

My contempt for all of this is boundless.


I will note here that the argument is being made that with the delay Obama will at least have access to the findings of the UN team that went to the site of the gas bombing and came out with samples — and thus will his case be bolstered. I find this a bit of nonsense as well. For it has already been concluded that there was a gas attack. If the UN now says the blood samples show there was a gas attack, how does this make Obama’s case stronger?

The issue (allegedly) was one of being sure that Assad ordered the attack. But the UN team’s blood samples will not provide evidence of this.


A case can be made that the longer the delay, the less the sense of immediacy, the easier to dispense with it all together.

Coming full circle, there is also concern about additional attacks against the Syrian population that Assad will pursue with great equanimity if has not been attacked. If the whole point is to warn him that his current behavior will not be tolerated, then he has to be warned, does he not?

In fact, Obama’s delay is causing Assad to feel even more emboldened.


Here in Israel, where criticism of Obama is strong, it is being said that Netanyahu now knows he cannot count on Obama on Iran.

My own opinion is that Netanyahu, who is not foolish, figured this out a long, long time ago.

Perhaps there are others, either here in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, who have now been disabused of any notion that Obama is someone to be depended upon. Neither the government of Israel nor that of other countries such as Saudi Arabia, eager for the attack, were informed in advance of Obama’s change in plans. The president’s credibility has sunk to a new low.

What is certain is that in Iran, they’re sniggering.


What I would like to suggest is that, if you are an American, you contact your representatives in Congress now, as they prepare to convene for the big debate.

Tell them that before they vote, they should be aware of the evidence of an incendiary bomb attack by the Assad regime on Syrian teenagers. Provide the BBC link, complete with video.

For your Congresspersons:


For your Senators:



You might want to see Alan Baker’s comments for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs on the situation in Syria. He is taking a broad international position:


Credit: cjnews


Lastly, let me share an upbeat article from the JPost Magazine about Israeli medical care provided to Syrians wounded in their horrendous civil war. This is the sort of article not only to read and share, but to save in order to refute malicious charges against Israel: