The Pharaohs Of Terrorism
What is a Pharaoh of Terrorism?   Where does he or she obtain the Divine Right to enslave and punish innocent people?   Who is the worst Pharaoh of Terrorism, Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein?   And most importantly, how can a Pharaoh of Vigilance protect the rights of the children, and the children's children's children?


Wednesday--November 13
, 2002—Ground Zero Plus 427
A Pharaoh Of Terrorism
Returns To Center Stage

Cliff McKenzie
   Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News

       GROUND ZERO, New York City, Nov. 13 --The Pharaoh of Terrorism has returned to center stage at the Theater of Conflict.  And he's mad he's been upstaged.   He's demanding the Terrorism spotlight shine on him before the final curtain falls.  

      The scene is simple.  On a bare stage stand Saddam Hussein and President George W. Bush.  They crouch in a face-off position, angled slightly so the audience can see their grim faces. Each wears a gun holstered to his hip. In the background wafts the theme music from High Noon.  A backdrop shows the sun rising.  A clock tics, moving the hands toward 12 noon. 
       It is the Third Act in a climactic Three-Act Play pitting Vigilance against Terrorism.
        The audience is anxiously poised on the edges of their chairs, = waiting to see who will draw his weapon first--Saddam or 'Dubbya'?   As both actors' fingers twitch, a hush descends over the Theater of Conflict. It is so quiet you could hear a pressure-release booby-trap pin go "twwwannng"  as you stepped on it.
        Suddenly, bursting out from the theater wings, a gaunt, worn figure stumbles onto center stage.  His long scraggly bearded face is drawn, his six-foot-four-inch body emaciated.  A pallor robs his face of color; he emits a zombie-like aura.  His sandals flop noisily as he clomps into the center-stage right.  Histrionically, he shoves his hands high above his head, waving long, delicate fingers at the jaw-slackened audience.  His Voice crackles as it pierces the shocked silence.

      "Wait...wait....this is my can't have a showdown without me....I'm the Pharaoh of Terrorism.  I'm the star...not Saddam....   Wait!   Lend me your ears....and your children...I am Osama bin Laden.  I am the super star of Terrorism, not Saddam."
       Upstaging Saddam and taking credit as the Master of Terrorism seems to be the strategy behind the recently released audio tape broadcast yesterday (Nov. 12-02) by Al Jazeera, the Arab satellite television channel.  
      Alleging the Voice to be that of Osama bin Laden, Al Jazerra officials aired the four-minute diatribe in which bin Laden praised the current Terrorist attacks in Russia and Bali and said they were "merely a reciprocal reaction to what Bush, the modern-day pharaoh, did by murdering our children in Iraq and what Israel, the ally of America, did in bombing houses of the elderly, women and children in Palestine, using American planes."
      The CIA is reviewing the tape to match bin Laden's Voiceprint, suspecting it might be a fake.  
      Bin Laden's emphasis on attaching the word "pharaoh" to President Bush comes from Koranic texts.   The texts profess that the fall of the pharaoh is considered the fate of arrogant leaders who think their own power equals God's.
      U.S. officials are pondering the veracity of the tape because al Qaeda appears to be regrouping.  Intelligence reports indicate a resurgence of activity, implying bin Laden's cells are preparing for new assaults.   On the tape, the Voice alleged to be bin Laden, stoked the fires of al Qaeda resentment against the West:  "For how long will fear, massacres, destruction, exile, orphanhood and widowhood be our lot, while security, stability and joy remain yours alone?   As you kill, you will be killed, as you raid, you will be raided."

      With just two days left on the ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to vow to allow weapons inspectors into his country or face military action by the United States to force Iraqi's disarmament, the bin Laden tape appears to be a wrench in the spokes of America's current single-focus anti-Terrorism policy targeting Hussein.
        Over the last number of months, the Bush administration has shifted its crosshairs from Afghanistan to Baghdad and drawn a bull's-eye around Saddam Hussein's heart since Osama bin Laden disappeared from sight nearly a year ago. 
         Suddenly, in the midst of the Third Act, American combat policy has two targets to deal with.

      The spotlighting of bin Laden on the "eve of destruction of the evil axis" seems orchestrated to confuse American efforts to surround Hussein as the "Pharaoh of Terrorism."   Over the past twelve months the "hunt for bin Laden" evaporated as the quest to corral  Saddam Hussein mounted.   But the presence of Osama bin Laden's new threat puts a fly in the ointment.  America's flanks are now vulnerable to bin Laden, forcing the U.S. to divide focus from one to two main Terror targets.
          Whether it's a ruse or true that bin Laden is alive and in charge is not the issue at the moment.  Confusion is.  America cannot afford to discount the threats issued by the recording.
          Since the War on Terrorism was launched specifically against Osama bin Laden post Nine Eleven, with the secondary target being Saddam Hussein, the question now is will America swivel its guns back to Osama or continue a major effort to quash Hussein?
          There can be no question that Osama bin Laden is the most immediate threat.  He has proven his thirst to attack America and kill innocent people and then boast about it.   Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is a seething threat, one that has not yet percolated upon American soil.    If a mother were to decide who should be the priority, I'm sure she would vote for bin Laden--an accused killer of American citizens.   
        In contrast, the Hussein issue is still far from a clear and present danger to our homeland security. The Iraqi leader has not attacked America directly--yet!  He has not wantonly killed Americans on homeland soil.   He is not openly threatening our children as Osama's Voice did on the tape.  Even though Hussein may serve as a far graver long-term threat, his swords have not yet pierced the belly of Americans here at home as Osama bin Laden has.

        Osama is still the most wanted man in America.
        When we demonized him for killing so many innocent people and placed a $25 million reward on his head--dead or alive--we gave him "Super Terrorist" status.  To ignore him now  would suggest our strategy had been from the beginning to use Osama as a conduit to Hussein.  If his recent Osama tape is proved valid, to ignore him as an immediate priority would weaken our position as the "Pharaohs of Vigilance," Terrorism's policemen.  
        Strategically, the presence of the audio tape is a masterful chess play by those who want to muck up American justification for attacking Iraq.   I'm sure President Bush is pulling at his hair, and war planners are scrambling to get out the maps on Afghanistan that were replaced by ones for Iraq.  I also wonder if the Conspiracy Thinkers are suggesting the tape was planted by the CIA, just in case Hussein buys the inspection deal so the War On Terrorism can continue to flamed.  It would be a good back-up plan to keep the world's focus on Terrorism.
        Of course, there are real life-threatening issues boiling in the Terrorism cauldron.  Let's not forget North Korea's recent admission of developing nuclear strike capabilities or the Chechen Terrorists in Russia. It seems the Serpents of Terrorism are slithering all over the globe; stepping on any one of their heads only means another will slither up and bare its fangs in yet another place, perhaps forcing us to straddle so far and stretch our resources so that one can bite our exposed groin.  It's not a pretty political picture for the lion to be surrounded by packs of hungry hyenas.

Serpent-Pharaoh of Terrorism

         U.N. fence riders teetering on giving the US authorization for military action against Iraqi if it doesn't comply with weapons inspection might take the new tape to mean that America should return its focus back to Osama and stave off its muscle against Iraq.   The argument can easily be made that until the immediate threat is resolved--Osama bin Laden--it isn't efficient or justified to attack the impending threat--Iraq.  Since no direct links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been confirmed, the argument for putting Osama back on the front burner and Saddam on the back one has sound logic.  It also derails all the hard work the Administration to convince the world that Saddam is really Osama's Father--the real Pharaoh of Terrorism.
        The situation reminds me of the television show, What's My Line, where four contestants sit and all allege to be the same person.  The panel asks questions and tries to figure who the real "Osama bin Laden" is.   Duping the panel is the game's goal.   
        But there is an overriding issue in this play.  It is:  "Who are the real Pharaohs of Terrorism and Vigilance?"  And, "Where do they get their power?"

From Sanakhte's tomb

      By definition, a "pharaoh" is a divine leader, appointed by God to rule in His behalf.  The first pharaoh was Sanakhte (c. 2686-2668 B.C.).   Pharaohs were alleged to be reincarnations of Horus, the son of the sun god Re.  They ruled through slavery and oppression, thus the reference by bin Laden's "Voice" that President Bush falls into those "arrogant" ranks of "lordship" over the world.
        Moses led the uprising that freed the Jews from slavery in Egypt and even negotiated with God on their behalf.  One could suggest that Osama bin Laden is attempting to claim a similar role in modern history as the man who parted the Red Seas of the 21st Century to free Muslims of Western oppression and slavery.

Moses Parts the Red Sea

      The reappearance of Osama bin Laden is also a reminder that the ultimate Pharaohs of Vigilance are the children, and the children's children's children.
        If there is a "divine right" of leadership in this world, it must be vested in the innocent, the vulnerable, and not in the adults who can be corrupted by their own righteousness.  Power-hungry adults tend to swerve around universal duties and responsibilities in a quest to further specific political, ethnic, religious, or social agendas at the expense of a much greater omnipotent duty--to preserve the safety and security of all the children, regardless of political, social, ethnic, religious or social agenda.

         American democracy was originally formed on the principle that each individual in a society is in charge of his or her destiny.   The idea of "divine rule" that subjected citizens to obedience of the monarchy and "nobles" was repulsive to the architects of American Freedom.

      That one should be "governed" by another because the nobles believed the average person did not have the ability or scope to govern himself or herself, drove American revolutionists to force the British from their new-claimed soil.  In the place of "divine leadership," America establish a Constitutional government "of, by and for the people."   All power was vested in the people--the mothers, fathers, grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, and children.  Power was granted upwards from the grass roots of society to elected officials whose sole purpose was to represent their views.   The three branches of government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial-- were created to maintain balance so that a Pharaoh could not rise above the people, or claim divinity over them.  
         The goal of Constitutional government was ultimately designed to protect the power and rights of the children.  It was to insure the "Rights of Man and Woman" would never fall into the hands of adults who might be inclined to serve their immediate needs of power brokering and self-gratification, but instead be preserved  in the grasp of the unborn children, the future generations.  The word "constitution" includes this definition: The aggregate of all one's inherited physical qualities; the aggregate of the vital powers of an individual, with reference to ability to endure hardship, resist disease, etc.; as, a robust constitution.
         Such aggregate power was based on the Vigilance necessary to do the "right thing for the future generations.  The "right thing" would be those actions that preserved their Liberty of future generations and their right of self-government and self-destiny."
         Constitutional framers were adept at knowing the dangers of power.  They knew adults think more about protecting their present agendas than in protecting their children's children's children's agenda.
        Daily, we see certain rights of the children being altered, shaved, chipped at to resolve immediate issues.   The rights to privacy, the rights to free speech, free movement, the rights to dissent are all under review and question to combat Terrorism.   New laws are being passed in the frenzy of Terrorism's looming shadow, sometimes with little question or challenge to their long-range effects on the children's, children's children.  Fear, Intimidation and Complacency expedite political agendas that endanger these rights.  The changes are usually cloaked in the shrouds of national security dictates.

        When protecting "now" becomes more important than protecting "then,"  we risk turning blind eyes to the impact upon our children's rights as we rush to smash Terrorism.
        Osama's reappearance has driven a spike into our dash toward being a Pharaoh of Vigilance.   His message forces us to reexamine the price of the War On Terrorism.  Do we turn and resume attacks on Osama?  Or, do we press forward on Hussein?  And, can we justify radical Constitutional shaving to win a war that has no face?
        It makes me wonder if our the price of endangering our children's children's Constitutional rights  is worth the heads of Osama or Saddam?
        It also motivates me to insist that our government include in all its decision making a process of "Generational Security."
        I maintain that unless we ask this critical "Generational Security Question" regarding all our foreign and domestic policies, we are at risk of becoming our own Pharaohs of Terrorism.  The question is:  "What impact does this decision have on the sovereign rights of our children's children's children?"


        If Generational Security decisions further future rights by at least 51 percent, then it is a good decision.  But if they endanger those rights by 51 percent, then it's back to the drawing tables.
        And what are those "children's rights?"
        They are the same ones listed in the U.S. Constitution.  They are the rights of self-government, that no government should be larger than the individual, and when it approaches that critical mass, it must either be reduced or replaced by the people.
        We must never forget that the Declaration of Independent--the Right to Revolt--stands above the Constitution in authority.   No law shall be made to restrain the Liberty of the people, and such Liberty is a divine grant, not a legislative one.
         Thomas Paine's Rights of Man is the Bible for children's rights.  The Constitution is the Ten Commandments.  And the Declaration of Independence is the Shield of Vigilance overriding everything below it. 
        Finally, the Pledge of Vigilance is our Bill of Children's Rights.  It charges adults to preserve and protect the children from Terrorism's harm--not just physical, but emotional Terrorism as well.  Its goal is to eliminate the Terrorism of Fear, Intimidation and Complacency placed upon a child by his or guardian or by society.  The tools of Guardianship are Courage, Conviction and Right Actions to the benefit of future generations.
          When we bestow such rights upon children, we take away our adult divine rights of selfishness and give them to our children, and to all children.  The Liberation of the enslaved by Moses was a symbol of returning divine rights back to those who were its rightful owners.  It was a selfless act, for it transferred power from the vulnerable to the innocent.

      As we grow into adults, we try and capture the divine rights we had as children, or, as some do, to collect the power we didn't have as children in retaliation to an abused childhood.
        The danger in acquiring power is that it becomes self-serving.   We delude ourselves into thinking less about the rights of the children's children's children and more about protecting and expanding our own individual rights.   Adult rights are selfish, self-centered rights.   They appear in such forms as the "right to an abortion," or the "right to not vote," or the "right to be complacent," or the "right to lead others anywhere I want to lead them.  In ultimate form, they include the right to abuse a child, the right to kill another, the right to be God!
        When we act in such ways, we become Pharaoh's of Terrorism.  For every right we exercise that is selfish, must be taken from the bundle of rights born to a child.   The more we subtract those rights from the children, the more vulnerable they are to the Terrors of the world--to feeling unloved, uncared for, unappreciated, neglected, abused.   As they grow up under the Pharaoh of Terrorism, they learn that selfishness is the key to power.  "Getting my share or more than my share," dominates their thinking.
           Ultimately, they evolved into Pharaoh's of Terrorism.  Their measure of life is always: "What's in it for me?"  rather than a Pharaoh's of Vigilance measure--"What's in it for the children's children's children?"      

Children at War

          Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are prime examples of Pharaohs of Terrorism.  Both have taken the divine right of leadership and imposed it on children.  
          And President Bush?   If he is thinking in terms of the children's children's children, then his strategy to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's grasp is the priority.  Osama becomes a red herring in the equation, a dangerous one of course.  And one to be reckoned with.
         But Hussein's history of using lethal weapons of mass destruction on innocent women and children as he did the Kurds, represents a willingness to exercise the Pharaoh's Terroristic Power far beyond the current capacity that Osama has.  
         And since the United States has no interest in conquering its enemies and ruling them and their children, the odds are that President Bush's goal is to protect the children's children's rights of Iraq to live under self government rather than despotic or tyrannical leadership.  
          So Osama bin Laden may not after all is said and done have mucked up the works as much as he might have planned.   In fact, for those employing Vigilant Thinking, his presence in the 11th hour may offer a codification of America's moral duty to neutralize Saddam Hussein's Pharaohship of Terrorism.
         But there is the ever present danger that Americans may forget their duty to manage the growth of Pharaohs in their own land.   To protect themselves from abdicating their rights of self-government, they should demand Generational Decisions by government--"How is this decision to the benefit of my children, my loved ones, and the world's children's children's children?"

       And how can we ask the government, our leaders, to do something we haven't yet done?   It's like asking our children to not do what we do, but to do what we say. 
      To codify the demand for Generational Decisions by government, we, the citizens, need first make them in our own homes, in our own lives.   When we are faced with constitutional decisions over "what's right or what's wrong," we can pause and ask the same question we demand of our leaders:  "How will the decision improve and protect the rights of the children's children's children?"  
      If we can't find a benefit to the future generations, then we are probably morally off track and need to find our way back to the starting point.
      The guide for Generational Decision making is the Pledge of Vigilance.   Download it.  Read it.  Live by it.
      Whether you're the janitor sweeping out the office building, the CEO of a major company, or the President of the United States, the Principles of the Pledge of Vigilance offer all users the same ability--to become Pharaohs of Vigilance rather than of Terrorism.
      And, what about Osama bin Laden?   Well, maybe one day he'll just sit down, hold up his hands and say, "I surrender.  Give me the Pledge of Vigilance."


Nov. 12--Big Apple Turns Small Town America To Fight Terrorism

©2001 - 2004,, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design