In this analogy, the thugs are depriving the neighbor of his right to property. What should you do? Well, since government is instituted among us to SECURE the neighbor's rights, and each of us has the unalienable right to our property and our lives, obviously in America we have individually shared our own unalienable right to self-protection with the government with the notion that it will protect us when the thugs arrive. What should the we do when a neighbor is being attacked? We should call the police who should come and apprehend the thugs. It is not our responsibility to risk our lives to singlehandedly save our neighbor's property. Government has been instituted in the community to secure our right to property. We most certainly DO have the responsibility to call the police to protect our neighbor's property.

If the thugs are threatening the life of the neighbor, there is another law - a moral law that may come into play. If we truly love our neighbor, we might want to risk our own life to protect that of our neighbor. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) Giving one's life to save the life of another is, indeed, a gift of love, not of politics.

If we take that analogy to Kosovo, the first thing one needs to determine is: who is the thug, who is the "neighbor" whose home is being ransacked? Who was the legitimate "owner" of Kosovo? Yugoslavia, obviously. Even the G8 agreement recognizes the sovereignty of Belgrade over Kosovo. Who are the "thugs"? If we go back into what into what now is considered ancient history, the year 1998, we find that a group of "thugs" were using armed force to take control of Kosovo - and killed the representatives of the government which had been instituted in the community to protect property and lives. A total of 300 policemen and Yugoslav soldiers were killed in 1998 while attempting to stop the thugs from taking over the property.

Now, at this point, someone is supposed to call the police. On the international level, in the past, that was the United Nations. But, Bill Clinton didn't want to call the United Nations. He called NATO. And then he called the media and identified the thugs as the Serbs and the mistreated neighbor as the Albanians who had killed the police and Yugoslavian soldiers.

"But the truth is that we don't know all that's going on there. We know mostly only what the President and NATO deign to tell us. And whenever we get reports from independent journalists on the scene, the reports seem to contradict the official accusations."

Now, let us assume, on a neighborhood level, that the neighbor rushes over to stop the "thugs" from ransacking the house and when he does they say: "Actually, this is MY property. This man stole it from me and I am just taking it back. In fact, some of this belonged to my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather and I'm merely reclaiming it. I want you to help me kill this man so I can have this property."

Now what does the neighbor do? In real life he'd say, "Tell it to the Court." That's not what Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and NATO did. They rushed in to assist the thugs who were doing the ransacking and sought to kill the neighbor whose household was being ransacked.

What is the government with which the people of Yugoslavia shared their right to self-defense? It was not NATO. It was the Milosevic government. Yugoslavia didn't ask NATO for help in putting down the insurgents. In fact, the insurgents got help from NATO to put down the government.

When 90 Serbian villages were ethnically cleansed during 1998 in Kosovo - what did the nearby NATO "neighbors" do? If you go back to using the original analogy, when those 90 villages were ethnically cleansed by terrorists, the concerned NATO neighbor might have asked the householder, the Government of Yugoslavia, if it needed some assistance.

That didn't happen. What did happen in 1998 was the "neighbor," i.e. NATO, demanded that the "householder," Yugoslavia, withdraw all police and military forces and allow the thugs to do as they pleased.

When the "householder" (Yugoslavia) decided to go back in to protect his property, the "NATO neighbor" showed up to assist the "thugs" by bombing the "householder." The "neighbor" might have called the international police - the United Nations - to determine the law in the matter. Instead, it circumvented International law and moved in to assist the "thugs." In this situation, of course, NATO is a bigger and stronger force than the United nations and there is no power around big enough to force NATO to abide by the law.

And, so we have what we have in Kosovo - rampant killing and destruction of property and apparent anarchy as the NATO powered "legal authority" permits Kosovo to be overrun by armed Albanian terrorists and bandits.

Decisions have been made based on "what the President and NATO deign to tell us. And whenever we get reports from independent journalists on the scene, the reports seem to contradict the official accusations."

How can the public, in whose hands lay the true "inalienable right" to property and self-protection make righteous decisions when the information they are given is wrong?

Can we reasonably expect the people to make correct decisions when they have been lied to and when they themsleves are not suffering from what is happening?

Evidently not.