An Anerican crisis: The nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court

For sometime now, this writer has been wanting to post some writings on the death of GOD in America. Knowing that GOD had died, is the reason the religious right turned to the political right to accomplish for them what their GOD refused to do. When this writer gets around to those writings, they’ll be a parody. With a mixture of humor and history. Laced with tales from the Bible. In the Bible GOD tells the church in America,’ you guys are a pretty useless group.’ Going to put that on hold because I want to write a little more about the current Supreme Court nominee.

It has been learned that a large group of republican lawyers gathered in Florida during the time of the Florida recount of 2000, according to the Miami Herald. Their source a longtime Washington insider.

They broke up into five different teams of eighty lawyers. They were busy developing strategies to make sure Gore did not win the election. One team concentrated on the U.S. Supreme Court. Another team on the Florida Supreme Court. Other teams put their efforts on litigation in county courts while others focused on trial attorneys and military affairs.

What was the role of the Supreme Court nominee? Well according Tom Cruz, who at the time was a domestic policy adviser for the Republican presidential ticket. And now the solicitor general for Texas. Roberts acted as legal adviser, editor of legal documents, coached attorneys on how to present arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Polished legal briefs for attorneys who might have to make court appearances. Very important was the role that Roberts played in dress rehearsals for the legal team that would present their case to the nations highest court. He had been there and had done that so he knew the job that had to be done. Roberts himself had argued 39 cases before the nations highest court. He won 25 of those cases. So that is why he was the right person for the job; according to Cruz. Cruz should know because He drafted him for the job.

Some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had wanted to know more about Roberts involvement. That was when they were told that Roberts had spent about a half hour with the Florida governor. Only to discover he spent up to ten days in Tallahassee.

Now they must discover the full extent of his involvement. What the Senate Judiciary Committee must determine is where does loyalty end? That is especially the case considering the sensitive nature of the cases the court will hear.

They also need to discover if the rumors of Roberts, and other clerks of the current Chief Justice represent a small group of Washington insiders. Who engage in dirty tricks against opponents.This group is known as the cabal. We know that dirty tricks stole the election from Gore. Who knows what that cabal is about. The Senate Judiciary has an obligation to get the answers.

The state of the nation is not in good hands and it could get much worse. Hear are some facts concerning Chief Justice Rehnquist.

While clerking for Justice Jackson, he wrote a memorandum arguing against integration of white school. That was during the time of the court’s historic deliberation in its landmark civil rights case, Brown v Board of Education. He has a history of voting against civil rights. He thinks Roe v Wade was wrongfully decided. He voted against Roe v Wade in 1973. He has not changed. In May of 2000, he said rape victims do not have the right to sue their alleged attackers. This indicates the just can not tolerate civil rights.

He has voted to expand police powers while voting to limit civil liberties. He has argued that political activism can not be tolerated if it would interfere with government work. Favors the governments ability to gather information on its citizens. It seems to me that Rehnquist favors a police state. What makes this all so troubling is that Roberts is to the right of Rehnquists. He must not be confirmed!

Here is the problem. The Senate is a place where you will not find people of moral conscience. They are owned by many different special interest groups. They vote, as has often been noted. By pointing their finger in the air in order to determine from what direction the wind is blowing. The American public can take advantage that trait. Send the committee hurricane force winds. They need to get the message. America does not want Roberts on the nations highest court. Inform the Senate Judiciary Committee of your opposition to John G. Roberts, Jr., nomination to the Supreme Court. To be helpful, this writer will post all necessary information on how to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Committee has 18 members 10 are Democrats. The first goal is to keep the nomination in committee. Which means all democrats, plus two republicans must vote not release the nominee to the full senate floor for a straight up and down vote.

Judiciary Committee Democrats
Patrick Leahy, D-VT.,
Ranking Democrat
433 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-4242
email: senator leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Edward Kennedy, D-MA.
317 Russell Senate office Bldg.,Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-4543
Web Form: Kennedy.senate.gov/contact
You can ask Roberts a question from the Kennedy web site. Answers will be illusive. You’ll have to exert effort to get clarity to your question. They often reply using coded phrases.

Joseph Biden, D-DE.
201 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-5042
email: senator@biden.senate.gov

Herb Kohl, D-WI.
330 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224- 5653
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen

Dianne Feinstein, D-CA.
331 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email

Russell Feingold D-WI.
331 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-5323
Email: russell feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Richard J. Durbin, D- IL.
332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Charles E. Schumer, D-NY.
313 hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee
Arlen Specter, Chairperson, R-PA.
711 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-4254
Web Form: specter.senate.gov

Orin Hatch, R-UT.
104 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-5251
Web Form: hatch,senate.gov

Charles Grassley, R- IA.
135 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-3744
Web Form: grassley.senate.gov

The above three are most likely to cross over and vote with the Democrats. Sen. Specter is the only republican on the judiciary committee who is pro-choice.

Jon Kyl, R-AZ.
Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-4521
Web Form: Kyl.senate.gov

Mike DeWine, R-OH.
140 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-2315
Web Form: dewine.senate.gov

Jeff Sessions, R-AL.
335 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-4124
Web Form: Sessions.senate.gov/email/contact.cfm

Lindsey Graham, R-SC.
290 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-5972
Web Form: lgraham.senate.gov

John Cornyn, R-TX.
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-2934
Web Form: cornyn.senate.gov

Sam Brownback, R-KS.
303 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510
202 224-6521
Web Form: brownback.senate.gov

Roberts to partisan a nominee for the Supreme Court

This is the fourth posting concerning the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the Supreme Court.

It is this writers contention that the nominee will not uphold the original intent of the Constitution as it applies to middle class America. The nominee, if confirmed, will help expand the power of the executive branch of government. He will make life difficult for consumers because he will side with corporate America against them. In a summary, the nominee will be conservative on issues involving the public. As a Supreme Court justice, expect liberal opinions for the power structure in America.

The people do not have a lawyer to represent them. It is true that The solicitor General and staff are suppose to be the peoples lawyer before the Supreme Court. John G Roberts, Jr., as an assistant solicitor wrote briefs as friend of the court. His writings could not be considered friendly to those all important six prerequisites discussed in the previous posting.

He favored limited speech for women seeking an abortion while not limiting the speech for opponents of abortion.

The nominee, co authored a brief in support of Operation Rescue. An anti choice extremist terrorist group who obstructed access to reproductive health care clinics.

He argued against federal affirmative action programs.

Thinks that the Constitution allows for religious ceremonies at public high schools.

Would not allow environmental groups to sue under the Endangered Species Act.

Does not see the burning of the flag as speech. That puts him to the right of Justice Scalia who sees the burning of the flag as speech.

Corporate America after reviewing the White House finalists lists favored the nominee over all others.

Roberts provided Gov. Jeb Bush with advice on how the Florida Legislature could install his brother as president during the disputed 2000 elections. Some on the Senate Judiciary Committee have suggested that in itself should disqualify Roberts from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It puts his objectivity into question. Most likely it would make him a very partisan justice. The Canon of Judicial Ethics demands neutrality from judges. To compound matters he is a big campaign contributor to republican candidates.

Recently as an Appeals Court Judge he gave the executive branch of government permission to proceed in denying detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prisoner of war status. This is in violation of the Geneva Convention. The treatment of prisoners by the United States has been condemned by Amnesty International and others around the world.

Need a speaker? This writer is available to lecture or debate the nomination of the candidate to the Supreme Court. Workshops available on political or religious topics of your choice.

John G. Roberts, Jr., will not honor the original intent of the Constitution

This is the third posting concerning the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the Supreme Court. In order to follow the writers thought it is suggested that the reader consult the previous writings. The design desired is that the reader will also conclude that John G. Roberts, Jr., should not be confirmed as a justice to the Supreme Court.

Most likely by now readers have heard the rhetoric that John G. Roberts, Jr., is a very genteel person. As to suggest, that in itself is grounds enough for his confirmation to the Supreme Court. For some, that may well be enough for his confirmation. One would hope that most people would hold the nominee to a much higher standard. That is what this postings is about.

The Bill of Rights sets down some prerequisites for those who want a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. They can be found in the First Amendment. Those prerequisites are as follows. The separation of church and state, freedom of speech, a free press, the right of the people to peacefully assemble, right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Absent just one of those six prerequisites and democracy is put at risk. With the current nominee more than one is in jeopardy

For the most part, congress and the executive branch will work to accommodate the majority of the population. The true mark of a democracy is how it responds to those outside the majority. In the nations recent history the Supreme Court has protected the rights of those outside of the majority. That has not always been the case. Maybe to the surprise of some, the Supreme Court has had a rather dark and undistinguished past. If this nominee, is confirmed and, given a seat on the Supreme Court. The nation can expect the clock of democracy to be turned back decades. The struggle for equality and freedom will start all over again. Which might cause the nation much shame, and blood shed. That has been the history of the fight for equality and freedom.

Democracy should create social tensions which will result in heightened expectations for some and social unrest for others. That is why a successful democracy needs a Supreme Court to serve as arbitrators of the First Amendment with respect to Constitution’s Framers.

This writers position is that John G. Roberts, Jr., will not be a fair arbitrator who will honor the Constitution’s framers original intent. It is based upon those six simple prerequisites and not on this writer’s personal opinion. It is desired that the reader and the nation will pass judgement upon the nominee employing that same criteria.

This writer clearly understands that these few postings will not derail the nominees path to the Supreme Court. While support for these postings is encouraging, in the grand scheme of derailment of the nominee. It will take the combined readership of these postings by joining others nation wide to work for the defeat John G. Roberts, Jr., to the Supreme Court.

In this writers next posting reasoning by factual demonstration will show that the nominee falls far short of the Constitution’s Framers original intent.

John G. Roberts,Jr., not fit to serve on the Supreme Court

To better understand this posting. It is suggested that reader consult the previous posting.

This writer is available as a quest speaker. Workshops with groups on how to derail the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the Supreme Court is also available.

Reasons why John G. Roberts, Jr., is the wrong person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Read and think about the following statement. Detractors will claim it amounts to class warfare. They will say it divides the nation rather than unite the nation. Think upon these American idioms. “Birds of a feather flock together.” “You will know them by the fruit they bare.” Where your treasure is there will be your heart.” There must be a reason why those idioms seem to have the ring of truth to so many ears.

John G. Roberts, Jr., raised in an affluent beach side town along the shores of Lake Michigan. The son of a Bethlehem Steel executive. Upon graduation from high school, he entered Harvard University. Birds of privilege do flock together. They seldom think of the rest of us as being equal. What do you think ‘Ivy League School’ denotes?

What does that mean? It suggests privilege. Which creates a lack of sensitivity to the needs of those less fortunate. Such insight can be gleamed from his writings.

Consider the case of a 12 year old girl who was arrested by transit police. Her crime, eating a single french fry at a metrorail station. She was searched. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was handcuffed. Then she was transported in the back of a windowless police vehicle to juvenile processing center.There she was interrogated, photographed, and finger printed. Held for hours, and released to the custody of her mother.

In Hedgepath -v- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (2004). The nominee to the Supreme Court. A Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Writing for the three judge panel, ruled in favor of the police.

It seems that the law was poorly written and did not make a lot of sense. For Roberts, that did not matter. What mattered was the application of the law. It also did not matter that the law was not good policy. What mattered was whether the 12 year old child suffered a violation of constitutional rights. To him that did not occur. He ruled in favor of the police.

John G. Roberts, Jr., should be denied a seat on the Supreme Court by the Senate by virtue of the following.

A 12 year old child has the standing of innocence. Meaning that a 12 year old must be seen as pure by intention. Not capable of understanding the law. It is from a legal doctrine known as mens rea. Therefore, the 12 year old did experience a violation of constitutional rights. The Judge should be condemned by the Senate for such insensitivity. Of equal importance, it shows a willingness to grant police excessive power. You will know them by the fruit they bare, or the decisions they pen.

The picture that this writer will paint of John G. Roberts, Jr., nominee to the Supreme Court is that he is very conservative. Conservative as he applies the law to working and middle class America. Most certainly to people of color, and those good folks who struggle to earn a living by the sweat of their brow. For all these people he may well be to the right of Justices Scalia and Thomas.

But John G. Roberts, Jr., is very liberal when making new law favoring the executive branch of government and corporate America. If confirmed, John G. Roberts, Jr., will also find ways to create case law to expand religious authority within the state. That will make him a very dangerous Justice. And so it is, you’ll know them by the fruit they bare.

More portrait painting of John G. Roberts, Jr., to follow.

John G. Roberts Jr., the wrong person for the Supreme Court

Dark clouds have been hovering over the nation for some time. Those clouds have rained down pours making visibility almost impossible. With those storms the nation has experienced the erosion of liberty and self determination once protected by the constitution. Self determination include great American virtues. Virtues like freedom, fairness, and equality. Those virtues were gained through the sacrifice of American blood on American soil. Gradually the nation has been moving in the direction of liberty and self determined by government edict. That results in the loss of liberty and the virtues of self determination.The people could turn to the Supreme Court for protection against the onslaught upon liberty and self determination. For a while, the people had a glimmer of hope. That climber of hope has been extinguished with the retirement of a Supreme Court justice. This writer would not hale that justice as a pure beacon for liberty and self determination and its stalwart virtues. But on, occasions she held off the storm surge. That was the best that could be expected, and now she is gone.

A new nominee has been named to take a seat on the Supreme Court. His name is John G. Roberts, Jr. He must not be confirmed by the Senate. He must be defeated even if a constitutional crisis is necessary to defeat him. The American public must encourage the Senate to employ every legal tactic to derail his nomination. Which eventually will require the use of the filibuster. A constitutional crisis may be necessary. The Republican leadership has warned the Democrats. That if they filibuster, the Republican majority will change the 200 year old tradition of filibustering by the Senate. A maneuver used by both parties in the past.

The Democrats do not have enough votes to keep the nomination from reaching the Senate floor. Nor do the Democrats have enough votes to defeat a straight up and down vote. The filibuster must be used. The filibuster will only work if the American people encourage, and rally around the Democrats. Who lack the gumption to stand up to the Republicans. That is because the Democrats have succeeded in becoming like Republicans. They are also owned by corporate America.

This writer will approach this nomination to the Supreme Court from the perspective of working Americans. Americans who work hard. Americans who do not earn a livable wage. Which requires them to have second jobs. Forced to pay more for their health benefits. Americans who seek employment but can not find jobs. With far to many Americans without any health coverage. Americans who slowly see what benefits they have disappearing. Americans who see their jobs out sourced around the globe. Americans who see the dream of being a home owner becoming beyond their financial means. People who see life getting tougher and tougher because of rising gas prices with no end in sight. Americans who can not afford to go to college. Americans who know their future will be bleak. Some will join the Army. Hoping against hope that the Army will be their meal ticket to a college and the future America promises.

With the confirmation of a John G. Roberts, Jr. the clouds will get darker for most Americans. He can be expected to serve the interest of corporate America. See the need to merge religion with the state. He can also be expected to serve the interest of the executive branch of government. Leaving American citizens with little hope of finding resolution for their grievances through the federal courts. He will allow states to legislate with impunity. History tells us that is a perfect equation for disaster. Americans can count on John G. Roberts, Jr., to turn the clock back decades. As he uses his penmanship to riddles away freedom and self determination. Wrapped in the blood soaked blanket of freedom, fairness and equality. He must t be denied a seat on the Supreme Court.

This writers next posting will begin discussing the reasons why the nominee to the Supreme Court is not good for America.

War on Terror not winable

This writer is available to appear as a guest speaker at your special function. Workshops with small groups are also available on how to impact your community or other topics of your choice. If an invitation is extended to address a secular group, the presentation will be of a secular nature. In addition, full ministerial services are available. Go to navigation tab. Click on ‘contact us.’

Why the War on Terror can not be won.

The confidential document leaked to the London Sunday Times. Contained some chilling information. Some of which was discussed below. The leaked document covers more than 100 pages. It formed the basis for the government’s counter terrorism strategy. Code named ‘Operation Contest.’ The Times reports that the government received the intelligence report sometime last year.

What is chilling is that the British government had access to the subject matter discussed here and in the previous posting. Still it could not stop the attacks. This despite a army of 1,000 officers deployed monitoring groups of suspected terrorists. Nor was the British government wise enough to alter its approach to its war on terror. It also refused to alter its foreign policy. The nation suffered the consequences. British intelligences laid out a sensible workable alternative which was rejected by the British political establishment That is the picture the leaked intelligences to the London Sunday Times suggested.

The police report that these Al-Queda members are sophisticated and very intelligent. A police official said that what makes the job tough is these terrorists are British born. They fit right in with their community because they are ” totally aware of British life and values.” Therefore, a need does not exists for infiltrating the country with terrorist from outside the country. That makes for formidable and very intimidating army. Trained and ready to wreak havoc in the city of London or perhaps in any city around the world.

‘Operation Contest’ was designed to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims through policy initiatives. Such as enacting anti discrimination laws. After the attack in London Operation Contest operatives are meeting to consider a radical overhaul of the strategy. Wow! wonder if the new policy will be Texan in nature. You can run but you can not hide. The world knows that approach does not work. Hey! it sounds good to a politician. So, Mr. Prime Minister, why not go for it? Of course, Mr Prime Minister, you could implement your intelligence. Look at the root causes of terrorism and get out of Iraq. Na, that is to practical. Better to cost more needless deaths. That seems to be the natural nature of a politician.

Why do politicians fight public opinion? That is suppose to be their realm of expertise. For example, the British Prime Minister rejected intelligence that suggested the causes of Al-Qaeda’s war with the West. He rejected the root causes for why young Muslims would join Al-Qaeda. Instead he backed the passage of anti discrimination laws against Muslims.

The Prime Minister on July 9, rejected the cause of the bombings as having anything to do with the British involvement in Iraq. Despite his intelligence telling him just the opposite. That along with the other reasons as to why young Muslims were attracted to Al-Qaeda which have been discussed. The world can only expect more unnecessary grief.

Go somewhere and watch children play. They may well grow up, and die on some foreign battle field like Iraq. Hopefully the world community will say no.

He offered these arguments enhance his position. He said Russia suffered terrorists attacks despite opposition to the war in Iraq. He asserted terrorists were planning more attacks on Spain. Even after the pro war government was voted out of office. His main point was that September 11, happened before Iraq or Afghanistan. So, we are expected to accept that rational, and continue to support the insane war of western governments.

Because the British government, and other pro war governments will not accept the root causes for terrorists attacks. A few of those causes have been discussed in this and the previous posting These pro war governments must modify their foreign policy. If not the attacks will continue, and the West will continue to be engaged in a war they can not win.

Great Britain was once a world power. And must now be subservient to the United States who replaced it as a world power. There is a country in eastern Asia gaining power, and becoming ready to replace the United States as the preeminent world power. Then the United States will become subservient to this emerging world power. In an upcoming posting this writer will discuss how that nation shocked this country with its capitalistic stealthiness. While this is occurring the United States sleeps because it is focused on the war on terror. This insane war on terror is creating a paralysis upon the nation. The nation may never recover from its crippling effects unless the American people demand changes.

We do not need the pied piper calling at our doorstep, again. Maybe this writer will write a story about the pied piper. Humor and truth mixed can approach events from the funny side. Much like the child’s’ tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Which is very appropriate for many political postings. If you are familiar with the tale, why not apply it to this posting.

Could teach a workshop on humor as an art form for expressing social, political, or religious discontent. Just go to navigation tab and click on ‘contact us.’ Groups do not have to be large. Meetings can take place in a park, home, library, or anyplace where people can meet.

Why the War on Terror can not be won.

Much has been written in the print media around the globe concerning the July seventh London bombings. Of course, the broadcast media has been just as active. This writer suspects that ordinary people around the world have been just as active with their discussions and conversations. At least that has been the case in this writers small part of the world. The London tragedy seems to have touched people who normally do not pay a lot of attention to world events.

Maybe the world community is acknowledging that such attacks can not be avoided. Polls seem to show that people are afraid. People are willing to support their governments solution for greater police and internal security power. In America that means the combination of CIA, FBI, and even military involvement through out the country to make America safe. Many are willing to sacrifice constitutional liberties, if that will make the country save from such attacks. They are willing to look the other way when this current administration in Washington snubs it nose at the rule of law. And declares that they are exempt, because this new war requires new strategies that require torture, and denial of judicial review. The kind of torture they condemned as a violation of human rights. The torture applied by countries like Libya, North Korea, China, Syria, and Egypt. Suddenly is acceptable because the world is at risk. Information must be secured by any means possible in order to make the world safe. Governments fear biological and chemical attacks. With the greatest fear being a nuclear attack.

Government is about control. Liberty in the American context exists only as long as the government has control. When it senses a challenge to its control liberty vanishes. That is exactly what is happening with the Governments war on terror. Other western governments concur, and liberties around the world are shrinking. The war on terror can not be won!

Western governments tell the people that the terrorists attacks represent an attack on western civilizations way of democratic life. That slogan was repeated by the British prime minister for the recent attacks on the country. Its a slogan echoed by other western governments. It sounds good because it rallies the support of the people. Who proudly announce that their way of like will not be disturbed by terrorists attack. And the government smiles. Such a slogan is also good for military recruitment. And the government keeps on smiling.

Oh! they know that they have a rallying slogan. But this writer contends, that world politicians know that they have never lived in greater danger. An example of this is the recent execution of an Egyptian politician on his way to a Iraq to accept an appointment for his government. Other examples could be cited but the point is made.

The British government is negotiating with the Australian government to take over their command responsibilities in Southern Iraq. So they can redeploy their troops to Afghanistan. Seems like the conflict there is also a long way from being over. Especially in light of recent loss of American lives. They are saying those navy seals just got to close to an enemy hide away. Thought the war there was suppose to be over with the establishment of a new government? Another truth, the conflict in Afghanistan will never be over as long as a Western presences remains.

The Sunday Times a much respected British newspaper received a leaked document prepared for the prime minister. The contents are quite revealing. They reveal the strength of a small group of people. Why they joined Al-Qaeda forces. The document is very long and detailed It is suggestive as to why the war on terror can not be won. At least, not through the approach currently being employed.

“Al-Qaeda is secretly recruiting affluent middle class Muslims in British Universities and colleges.” They are recruiting people with ‘ technical and professional qualifications. ‘ People with engineering and IT degrees. With success, right under the nose of British and American intelligence agencies without detection, this writer suspects.

“The police believe those behind the outrage may be home grown British terrorists with no criminal backgrounds and possessing technical expertise.”

“Up to three thousand British born people had passed through Osama Bin Laden’s training camps.”

“Intelligences indicates that the number of British Muslims actively engaged in terrorists activity, whether at home or abroad or supporting such activity is extremely small and estimated at less than 1%.”

“This equates to fewer than 16,000 potential terrorists supporters out of a Muslim population of 1.6m.”

“The dossier reveals another 10,000 have attended extremist conferences. The security services believe that the number who are prepared to commit terrorist attacks runs into the hundreds.”

The logical question to ask is, why would British citizens, who are well educated and without criminal records become terrorist? The answer is ‘double standards.’ The Iraq war is identified in the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism.” It seems that a particular strong cause for disillusionment among Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived ‘double standard’ in foreign policy of Western governments in particular Britain and the US.”

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’ as demonstrated in British foreign policy of non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya has given way to ‘active oppression.’ The war on terror, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

The analysis prepared for the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair identified Iraq as a ” recruiting sergeant’ for extremism which the Prime Minister rejected.

This writer clergyman is available to expand upon the contents of this posting. Please refer to the navigation link for contact information and other services provided.