Human Teachers

*******

It is traditional in most schools of true mysticism not to recommend any particular human teacher. As stated in the article, "The True Buddha," last week, true mystic masters tell us to "kill" the idea of an "external" Buddha or Christ.

Of course, as mystics, we do well to study the lives and teachings of people in history who have proved to be real mystics. We often quote from Jesus Christ, Siddhartha Gautama (the "Buddha"), Lao Tzu, Al Hallaj, Solomon, Patanjali, and others whose lives have demonstrated Love, joy, peace, and wisdom.

But the genuine mystic learns most by living, and by consulting with the great Spirit that lives within her heart. Mystics do not point to ego-personalities. They do not elevate personalities or egos. For to do so would betray the core of their mysticism. To point to human teachers, to elevate and glorify them as egos, is to miss the whole point that each mind contains the entire great Mind (God, Buddha, Christ, Krishna, etc.) We must always look beyond mere personality, ego-selves (identified by individual names) to the Spirit; and we must never forget that the Spirit of Love dwells not in others-- gurus, priests, pastors, and ministers-- but She/He lives in your own heart. It is with the heart that the mystic confers, and it is to the Instructor or Teacher in the heart that she turns when she needs advice, knowledge, or wisdom.

But, if this is so, why are some mystics "called" to teaching? The teacher-mystic-- and these are real-- serves only as a "crutch," or "band-aid," while the person is doing her own interior growing/developing. A teacher-mystic is like a doctor: Doctors never cure anything; they simply set up a body-environment that makes it more likely that the body will heal itself.

The teacher-mystic never causes anyone to grow. She simply sets up the situations/events/environments/questions/challenges that make interior growth more likely, or more rapid. All growing is done from within the person.

Student and teacher are reversible and interchangeable. Every true teacher recognizes, in humility, that she is also a student, and that all students are also teachers. There is no permanent "clergy class" in the "body" of God. A finger is not "better" than an ear. So, each is simply a different "part of the body of God." But, in this case, fingers can become ears!

We are all equal, intrinsically. None is better than another. But, just as a fool can be taught, in time, to become a doctor or lawyer, so an ordinary person can be taught, in time, to become a "teacher," if her interest is great enough.

But if you find yourself speaking about a human teacher instead of a fine teaching, CAUTION: You are already on the dangerous, slippery path of destructive cult-psychology.

*******

Translations of the Scriptures

*******

It is fascinating to follow the histories of versions (translations, renditions) of the Bible. It is probably true that there was a great deal of good scholarly research that went into the King James Version of 1611. Its scholarly and academic heritage is impressive.

Nevertheless, later scholars were to find the King James Version to contain numerous errors of translation and rendition, despite all its care and scholarly cautions. Some have estimated the number of errors at about twenty thousand.

Thus, the need for later translations of the Scriptures.

A single example among many is Genesis 1:1, at the very start. KJ says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." But all scholars of Hebrew know with certainty that this is a mistranslation, although very universal. For the noun used in Hebrew was elohim. This word does not mean "God." Instead, it is plural, and is correctly translated as "gods." So, the text should read: "In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the earth."

Due to these and comparable errors, the modern spiritual student is open to using many versions of the Scriptures. The Jerusalem Bible and The New International Version spring readily to mind as tools for understanding. Only fundamentalists, who are not known for scholarly accuracy, insist on the "absolute fidelity" or "correctness" of the KJV. More progressive Christians and Jews are open to many other translations, some of which are demonstrably clearer, or better, than the KJV.

Hort and Wescott produced, in 1881, an excellent and reliable text of the ancient Greek manuscript of the Christian Scriptures ("New Testament").

The translation of J.B. Phillips, and those of Rotherham and Moffat, depend upon these texts. So does the New American Bible, and the Revised Standard, and the New American Standard. (The latter is corrupted by the error of mistaking the "Jehovah" of the ancient Hebrews for God, and has thus inappropriately and incorrectly inserted this name, illegitimately, into the texts of the Christian Bible.)

Perhaps The New American Bible or Today's English Version, or The Way go much too far in looseness and playing with the language. They veer far from the original, and contain much illicit paraphrase. But there are many others that cling much more closely to the ancient Greek, and hence, many of the modern Bibles are more accurate than the KJV.

Only extremist fundies cling to the idea that the KJV is "divinely inspired," or "the Word of God." [In the Scriptures ("New Testament") themselves, the "word" (Greek, logos) never refers to a book of any kind, but to the living Spirit that is God. (John 1:1, Heb. 4:12, etc.)]

Language itself is incapable of describing the core-realities, so there might never be a "perfect, flawless" translation of the spiritual texts. Still, a balanced, cautious, and wise study of the text implies that many versions can be used, without being dogmatically stiff and unbending about any particular one. Openminded flexibility is a mark of a true scholar, as well as of the balanced, growing spiritual person.
*******

Jesus and Christ

*******
Jesus, as a true human being, like you and me, was the "son of man." But his soul/spiritual nature was produced by the Holy Spirit of God. So he was, again like you and me, the "son of God."

The later Church formula stated that Jesus was "true God and true man." He did share in our human nature. He was "born of a woman," like all of us, and did share in genetic or biological heritage, again, as we all do.

But, in what must have been a fantastic mystical experience, he realized, with the power of a lightning-bolt, that he shared in the mental divine nature. Like all of us, his mind grew from, and was a part of, an infinite and limitless Mind-- the Mind of God.

Although Jesus never said, in the formal Scriptures, "I am the son of God, I am the son of man," this statement does clearly reflect the teachings of the Holy Scriptures-- for he was both.

This is probably the central teaching of Christianity. But it does not present Jesus as a "freak," or one-of-a-kind. Instead, it portrays him as a model. Jesus, says the text, was "a model, for you to follow his footsteps closely." (1 Pet. 2:21)

"Jesus Christ" was not his name. He was born with the Hebrew name Immanuel, which he later changed to "Jesus." (It is not uncommon for people to change their names after spiritual rebirth.) But the name "Jesus" referred to his human side, and the word "Christ" described his spiritual side, his enlightened Self.

If we are truly to "follow" him as a "model," he must partake of our human nature. That is, he must not be a totally supernatural being, far above our nature and capacity. He must, in short, be a "son of man." And we, in turn, must be, or become, "sons of God."

This is the spiritual interface between Jesus Christ and you and me. Of course, his spiritual growth is far in excess of our own; but we must nevertheless reach for his perfection of Love. We must fill ourselves with God-- or, more correctly, allow God to fill us. For this, like all spiritual mysteries, is all about Love.

In his person (human self), Jesus set forth the greatest teaching of all truth: That human nature is, very deeply in the Unconscious, also love-nature, or divine nature. As he expressed Love, and became an incarnation of Love, through the abandonment of his "human self" (ego), so we must work to allow this grace to be implanted and cultivated within our personal hearts. This is the very meaning of the word "Christian" (which means "like Christ.")
*******

Egoless Teaching

*******

Truly spiritual people-- those partaking of Love-enlightenment-- strive not to draw attention to themselves as egos. So, the claim to be anything "special" or "chosen" does not mark them. You can recognize a truly spiritual person by humility. You can usually spot the phonies, or those who are "off-course," by their claim to be some kind of "special prophet," or some kind of "anointed" by God.
*******

Dialogue Between Mick G and Friends

Mick G wrote:
When you can..give me your opinion on this, I didn't know how to respond to my sister...or if I should at all? I was thinkin' starting with the native American Indians, the Euro white male was one of the most barbaric conquers, in history--much like the Crusades.....and Inquisition,etc. The anti-semitism back then wasn't from the Moors/Muslims, so much as from the "Good Christians." I'm not totally sure of that--but that's what I've read, from a Jewish author, no less. Lou, Louise, I know you know your world history much more than I, I would appreciate any input on this. I know--it's immature to answer--tit 4 tat, but....I dunno, my sister is a conservative Catholic, Bush-Cheney supporter, and feels like it's all 'Black & White' that we have to kill evil, and were ALL so good, and their bad, and it's Like Jesus steppin' on the head of the serpent, blah, blah..we've had heated exchanges many times, but not lately though---we gave up on each other--God Bless—Happy New Year!!

*****

From: Louise R
To: Mick G
Subject: Jesus test

As my Catholic relatives and Catholic friends have always said "If the priest holds something that is definitely white and says it is black – WE know that it is DEFINITELY BLACK.

Good luck if you can convince your sister in [changing] anything that she believes-- but keep trying anyway! [Keep resisting] bush, cheney, etc. you have your work cut out

I believe that all people should start understanding other religions, respecting everyone's right, not trying to convert, but to teach peace-- not killing! I feel like a hypocrite whenever I go into churches of any religion as I [no] longer believe in everything they
teach us to believe.

Too many wars were done as religious missions. Centuries ago, soldiers from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, [and] England fought their way to Jerusalem for[centuries] to "rescue the Holy Grail." Missionaries in Vietnam were responsible for convincing us to send [more] troops to prevent Communism spreading. France left Vietnam. I watched TV as they were talking, sending pictures.

We should support the Dayton Peace Museum, support the Peace Movements. I read Hitler's Mein Kampf. My father told me to "get that book out-of-[the-] house," burn it. But he [Hitler] did have some points-- Jewish Attorneys & Bankers favor[ed] Jewish people, but other religions also favor their own people. We need to get people focused on the individual - not their group. In the Depression, the Jewish family next door gave my father work, gave my brother a job. [But they also] told my family (and we knew it was true), that their family was unhappy that my neighbor helped us instead of helping another Jew.

At least, I, and most of my relatives and friends, (Catholic and Protestant) have left the Republican ranks and opened eyes and ears to what is going on. Fortunately I listened to my father and in the 1930s, Father Couglin on the radio from the "Little Church of" I forgotten what the name of his church was in Detroit, Michigan. He tried to tell fellow Americans of the abusers of truth in politics and religion, Capital vs Labor. I'm surprised that the Catholic Church did not shut him down, maybe they finally did.

My Mother baked every week, made soup, etc. and my father would take it over to what is now John Carroll University in University Heights, Ohio (suburb of Cleveland) to two elderly Jesuit Priests who were living in the first building under construction. The priests had little money and no central heat. One Saturday morning, my father found them dead, their bodies frozen as they tried to keep the seismograph [?] warm from their bodies. My parents were so angry, as they notified the police and Catholic authorities, and there was no reaction. [The response was] only like a "So what?" The Diocese in Cleveland, Ohio has always had plenty of money. Two sisters in our neighborhood worked in the Diocese, one as head of Catholic Welfare and my father prepared her federal/state income tax. The Church also owned the National Broadcasting Station. Why could the Church and my Catholic relatives not see that it was wrong to not provide the Jesuit Priests with food and shelter.

On the other hand, my Protestant grandmother saw no wrong in ministers, they were above reproach, always right, to be respected, listened to, followed, even when a woman reported she was raped.

"Ministers could do no wrong" Ha, Ha - they are still human beings, can be good, can be bad. Look at the recent Cincinnati area news, regarding ministers, the religious organization involved in placing children in questionable foster homes.
GET RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS
Currently I think we should believe in ourselves, (think about what we are, character, read, listen, question

When I was in grade school on Armistice Day (11th hour, 11th day, 11th month) day to remember World War I as the war to end all wars, I came home from school and asked my mother "why were the Germans and Americans fighting?" They believed in God, we believed in God. I think that is the time that I started questioning everything, especially religion and politics. At the church where we attended, my father opened a telegram from Washington DC, telling the church what to preach on Sunday. I recall Newton D. Baker was the name, believe he was the Secretary of Warr (later changed by politicians to "Defense".

My parents were the product of family arguments on religion, history of abuses, believers that 'instances did happen in the family", and non-believers, 'just a story". Therefore they made it a point to be friends with everyone, talk about beliefs, customs. My father started the Cleveland Conference of Christians and Jews. Every month, a Priest, Minister, or Rabbi from each church and temple would meet for lunch and discuss community issues. We also would have in each community, a community Thanksgiving Service to be held each year in a different religious church/synagogue. That continued until a new Pope in Rome ordered that Catholic Priests could no longer attend or join a community organization. There would now be catholics and non-catholics.

After I told someone about my maternal grandmother's having gone into the Chicago saloons and being a charter member of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, that passed the Prohibition Amendment, he said no wonder you are the way you are. My Dad, descending from a[n] Austrian-Holland generation who made their own wine/beer, refused to go into a speakeasy during Prohibition. We made homemade root beer. When [Prohibition was] repealed, the first day was the date of my brother's Senior Prom. My Dad warned him not to drink, as it would still be "bootleg", and not inspected. My brother did, and almost died. My paternal grandmother marched in Evanston Wyoming to get [the] Suffrage Amendment passed; and Wyoming was the first state to give women
the right to vote. So, I really should (and have not) get more active in politics.
BUT if I ever, ever get my house organized-- still have boxes to unpack, go thru, throw out, file, [and] shred-- will get active in the World Peach [Peace] Movement. Oh well, when younger, i noticed that old people talk too much, too long - and I am now doing the same; [I] admit that I am indeed 'old.

It was wonderful growing up in our home. At sometime or [other], every priest, rabbi, and minister had come many times to talk with my father. They talked freely, as they knew my father respected their confidence. (But as a child, I listened, remembered, and never told until now.) I knew almost every priest, minister, and rabbi in Cleveland. Later when I played the harp for a wedding or other occasion, they remembered me, to my surprise.

When my father was in the hospital before he died, radio advertised that the blood bank was low, and my father's name was mentioned. The hospital was surprised at how many ]responded,] and the identity of the donors. As I told my father, you have to get well, you have Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish blood all fighting for you.

At his funeral, the funeral director asked me "who was your father". I questioned "Why do you ask?" Because they were both in the Rotary Club. My father had sold him advertising and funeral paper supplies for years. Funeral homes had had funerals for 3 Cleveland Mayors, and not one of them had had as many flowers, wreaths, cards as my father's funerals. Flowers were in every room (floor to ceiling), [and] on [the] porch that encircled the funeral home (from floor to ceiling). My father stressed "logic", think "logic".

Before I left California, there was a documentary: [In it,] the "good Christians" took Indian children from their villages into San Bernadino, California from as young as 2-3 years old. [They] made them wear our clothing styles, cut their hair, eat our type of food, talk only English, go to our churches, [and] learn our religion. Those poor children and parents! Only in the past few years has this knowledge been published. Only recently have the American Indians been allowed to govern themselves and have their own schools and native teachers, etc.

On TV last year I saw a documentary. A man in Australia decided to go to England and look up his family. He could not get a passport because of not having a birth certificate. In investigating, [it was] found that the Queen of England, Prime Minister, Church of England (Episcopal) and the Catholic Church in England were equally guilty. [They were] knowledgeable [and] responsible for taking all children in the orphanages during World War II, put[ting] them on ships, [taking] them to Australia. [This was] to build up English blood among the Aborigines. As small children, they were used as laborers to build schools and dormitories. The children were divided up between the Episcopal and Catholic dormitories and schools. I talked with people at work the next day. They told me the TV story was untrue, England could not have done anything like that. There were even pictures of the men and women now finding their identit[ies] and families. One mother said that when her husband was killed, she put her children in the orphanage until she found a job. When she went to get her children, [she] was told that they had been adopted by a "wonderful family" and were "better off." [She was told that] she should never try to find them.

Again, how we are manipulated by politics and religion I should write a book-- save some of [these] ramblings to be published after my death; or, I could be sued [over] some things I could write about.

*****

From: Mick G
To: David L
Subject: Jesus test

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: n b
To: Mick G
Subject: Jesus test

I am highly offended that you misinterpreted the forward (Jesus? So, you believe in whom?) I thought this was one message with which most Christians would agree, that Jesus is the answer. No, you take it personally, like a real a$$h@le, and embarrass me with your misrepresentation of this and of me. You who espouse tolerance for all thoughts, beliefs and faiths except, of course, MINE, are really hopeless, that's what I think. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME, SERIOUSLY!

*****
From: David L
To: Mick G
Subject: Jesus test

We, as a country, have no right calling ourselves "Christians," when our government has gone out and slaughtered innocent civilians in a foreign country. Having prayer in school or posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is just as hypocritical as saying [that[ we trust in god. The Republican party has used these tactics to get elected, and only the stupid fell for it. That's why they are not in power now. The people have spoken. There are only two types of Republicans: The very wealthy and the stupid.

*****

From: Louise R
To: Mick G
Subject: Re Jesus test

We are the ones who are stupid. We talk among ourselves, do not get involved.

WE DO NOT write, or call the politicians.

Congress needs to change immediately--separate Church and state, and tax all religions. Religion has become a business. Anyone can get a diploma, have a friend or 2 over, [and declare it a "church"]. [Forever after, she] can deduct [her] home, car, etc. With all the property that religious institutions have, tax revenue from those would fund the schools, [and] fund welfare agencies

Need to change immediately that "babies born are not immediately American Citizens, only if BOTH PARENTS ARE LEGAL CITIZENS.

The 'minister' in Indianapolis started out helping people. Then, [he was] a good man. Then, [because] power corrupts, ]things changed]. He moved his congregation to San Francisco, then to South America. And we should remember how all those people "committed suicide"! Their relatives could not convince family members to leave that church [more exactly, cult].

Look at the corruption in all religions. But religion appears to hypnotize people, cloud their thinking. (Or [they are] told) , not to think, but to accept.

*****

The "Jesus Test"

*******

The "Jesus test," an email that was to be forwarded, is completely meaningless. For any fool, or hypocrite, could easily forward this message-- anyone, without the Love of the Father in their hearts. The real "Jesus test" is how you treated yourself, your family, and your friends today, and yesterday, and tomorrow.

Sending along silly messages over email is simply too "easy" to prove, or even to indicate, anything at all. A person filled with ignorance and hatred could send this message to a hundred people. It would be hollow, meaningless, and empty, signifying nothing. In a very few minutes, you will be taking the real and genuine "Jesus test." A friend, or relative, or yourself, will put your patience and Love to the test. Now, that will mean something. That will matter. That will count.
*******

This World and the Real World of Mind

*******

Crying, in moderation, can be good and healing. But we must work not to allow negative emotions to dominate us. Thinking about our spiritual origins and nature can be very healing: When we, as nonphysical and invincible souls, agree to come to earth, and live within "physical" or "material" bodies, in a dream, we subject ourselves to experiences which are more than challenging. Earth can be an amusement park in the cosmos, but for most, it is more like an unsettling movie. The lower nature wants us to believe that we are bodies, rather than invulnerable minds using bodies as their instruments.

No soul ever loses anything-- any good event, any memory-- from the deeper Mind (soul) or deepest Mind (Spirit). For the world cannot affect, or change, deeper levels of Mind.

When we grow into this realization about ourselves and others, it does not immediately remove all pain, but it certainly does help greatly. The Core or Essence of any soul has never changed, and will never change, even though some items are inaccessible to the conscious mind at present. Everyone is, deep within, an infinite Lover with an infinite abundance of Love. And the world, the body, or other factors can never change that eternal Love. For It is God within.

Love, in time, does indeed heal all conditions, and nothing can ever stand against It. You have seen, in your own case, how much time can alter things and bring interior healing.

Also, spirituality is totally transformative in our views of "death." The great spiritual classic the Bhagavad-Gita likens death to taking off an old shirt and putting on a new one. To the conscious mind, death is a tragedy and disaster; and we do indeed seem to lose much. But from the view of the deepest Mind (Spirit), death can take away nothing, for it does not alter the basic structure or contents of the heartmind. From the view of eternity, death is a liberation. It is really as if our dead friends travel to another country, fairly far away; but we shall all go there. It is just a matter of time until we are fully and completely re-united with them, in the majestic bonds of undying Love. So, the same Spirit of Love that sustains you through this often-troubling world will also sustain you no matter what occurs in the future. And it is all-powerful and all-knowing.

"Never is such a mind-boggling long time. That is why they commonly say, "Never say never." For, in time, you will become such an immense, wise, and profound being that you will make ordinary human consciousness look like the activities of an ant-colony. Nature, life, and experience will use Love to reform you into this massively powerful and spiritual being. They are working their "magic" upon you at this very moment.

It is great to see how your mother is, at least in part, "reincarnated" in your offspring, and this beauty is part of her continuing gift to you. What could ever be a more beautiful manifestation of the Goddess than your dear and sensitive daughter?

Wherever there is beauty, there is Goddess, and beauty in all its forms is a true form of sacred worship.

Sweet, tender Love is an "oasis of Goddess" in the middle of the "desert" of this world. We are so glad that you have this "harbor" or "haven" during the storm, for this, too, is God in action. Love reminds us that there is nothing sweeter in any universe than pure and simple Love.

And our Love bounces back multiplied by the Light and laughter of the care-free parts of our shared natures; they alone can rise, and lift us, above the conflicts of this world, purifying and cleansing us with joy and faith. For our only Reality is the world of Mind, so much more harmonious, beautiful, and fulfilling than the illusions and passing dreamscapes of this world.
*******

The True Buddha

*******

Several people, obsessed with ego, have claimed, in various cults, to be the "Buddha reincarnated." Spiritual people depend upon the inner Spirit of Love (Christ or Buddha) to guide them. They-- we-- do not seek gurus on the outside. This helps us to avoid phonies, frauds, fools, and cultists. The masters said, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." That means that the true Buddha can never be "on the road," outside of yourself; the true Buddha is the spiritual nature deep within your mind.
*******

Reincarnation

*******
"Reincarnation," or multiple lives, is a teaching that is universal. Most of the population of our planet, for most of its history, has believed in "polybiography," or multiple lives for the same soul.

If the soul is immortal-- and all faiths agree that it is-- it must be doing something. Since it is God's will that all souls discover Christ-- and the Scriptures teach that it is-- this does not mean that all souls will know Christ at the same time. Indeed, we can see easily that they do not. Different souls obviously grow at different rates, and some souls are in "pre-school," while others have graduated at the university-level. But, with the passage of time, all souls can move into enlightenment.

Early Christians almost universally taught the idea, and many ancient references ascribe this teaching to Jesus. Indeed, the current "official New Testament" teaches that "John the Baptizer was Elijah." Also,in John chapter 10, the disciples asked Jesus, about the blind man, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?" This indicated that they must have believed in karma, for the man was recognized as possibly sinning before he was born.

And when Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was, they answered that he might have been "Isaiah... or one of the prophets." So, they must have believed it possible that the "prophets" could return. This is the teaching of reincarnation. Paul wrote, "Whatever a man soweth, that he must also reap." But in our visible world, this does not occur. Many mean, evil, dishonest people prosper, and seem "successful," even though they clearly do not deserve the "reward" of success. The implication is that this "sowing and reaping" must occur in the afterlife.

As far as the Scriptures of the Jews ("Old Testament") are concerned, it is well-known that polybiography was a very common teaching among the Jews. As one example, Job said, "Naked came I from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there." Polybiography is the only system that makes pure justice possible. If we come from "nowhere" at birth, and return to "nowhere" at death, there can be no justice. But God is just in all His ways, and so, the overall picture of the cosmos must be larger than just the events of this one microscopic planet.

Entire books have been written on the fascinating subject of Christianity and reincarnation, so I will not be able to address the whole question exhaustively in a single article. But I have carefully examined every philosophy from every variety of Christianity (having attended over fifty churches), and I have spoken for hours with ministers from many Christian denominations. No one has been ever able to make sense of the cosmos, without including some form of reincarnation. It is the only view that truly makes sense of all the "evil" in the world.

As for Jesus, reincarnationists believe that his soul's reincarnation as Jesus was the end of a long line of incarnations. (This word comes from Latin, and means simply "in flesh.")

It does not change the idea of reincarnation, no matter what the origin of his physical body. When the egg meets the sperm, in the womb, and forms a "zygote," it grows biologically in that environment and becomes a separate and true "individual" upon taking its first independent breath.

After that point, the soul is irreversibly, irrevocably locked into the body, and can never leave it except for short periods.

I'll check around and see whether I can find a good book on this subject, as your question is very deep and important, and it deserves a thorough answer.

*******

Articles of Impeachment Filed

Congresswoman McKinney Files Articles of Impeachment

By Matt Pascarella (December 8, 2006)

On Monday, gathering in a conference room in Washington D.C., Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her advisors worked on a draft copy of the articles of impeachment against President Bush.

At the heart of the charges contained in McKinney’s articles of impeachment, is the allegation that President Bush has not upheld the oath of presidential office and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I states that President Bush has failed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Specifically cited in this article is the charge that Bush has manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war: “George Walker Bush … in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information … and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.”

This manipulation of intelligence was done, the charge continues, “with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice.”

Article II, “Abuse of office and of executive privilege,” states that President Bush has disregarded his oath of office by “obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.” The President has “failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.”

This article continues by indicting Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in their actions to manipulate or “fix” intelligence and mislead the public about Iraq’s weapons programs. Ultimately, this article calls not only for Bush’s impeachment and removal from office but also asks the same actions to be taken against Cheney and Rice.

Article III states that President Bush has failed to “ensure the laws are faithfully executed” and that he has “violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.”

Specifically, McKinney cites illegal domestic spying as a result of failing to obtain warrants thereby subverting congress and the judiciary in the process: “… by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit.”

The article continues by citing public statements Bush has made that were blatantly contradictory to his policy and actions regarding domestic spying.

While the staff was editing the document, one advisor told me, “As we sat down and worked on this, a pattern became very clear … a pattern to specifically undermine the constitution and establish a unitary presidency.”

The charges addressed in McKinney’s resolution are nothing revelatory or new. Rather, they are issues which have been in the public eye for quite some time and have increasingly been covered in the media over the last year.

Despite winning the congressional majority, the Democrats have yet to put forth a plan to investigate what have become somewhat ubiquitous allegations.

Speaker-elect, Representative Pelosi, dismissed any possibility of impeachment, saying it is “off the table” and that it is “a waste of time … making them lameducks is good enough for me.” Although, in the November election, 60% of the voters in her own district cast ballots in favor of Proposition J, a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

In 2005 Representative John Conyers sponsored a resolution, HR 365, to create a special committee to investigate allegations against the Bush Administration – a move that would likely lead to the discovery of impeachable offenses. This resolution was passed to the House Committee on Rules and was never brought up for a vote.

At that time it was widely believed that if the Democrats took control of congress, Conyers would reintroduce the resolution as would have subpoena power if selected as leader of the House Judiciary Committee.

A few days after the Democrats won control Conyers echoed Pelosi’s statement saying, “I am in total agreement with her on this issue … impeachment is off the table.” Last week a spokesperson from Conyers office said that the resolution would not be reintroduced and that the Representative had no intention to pursue the matter.

Will other members of congress support the action Congresswoman McKinney has brought forth?

At the table in what could be considered her impeachment “war room” the question is brought up a number of times.

Mike, an advisor to McKinney, mentions, “Conyers was supposed to have investigations. They were chomping at the bit 6 months ago to do subpoenas.”

McKinney quietly replies, “Now they say they aren’t even going to issue subpoenas.”

Looking up from her papers she takes a deep breath, “I’m going in alone on this one because now it is all about them playing majority politics.”

This is McKinney’s last week as a member of congress and this act, to impeach the president, is the final resolution she will enter into the Congressional record.

For those who know anything about Cynthia McKinney it may come as no surprise that she would file this resolution as her parting gift to Congress.

McKinney is no stranger to being attacked by the media and has been isolated from her own party.

From her inquiries into election fraud in 2000 to her calls for a transparent and thorough investigation into 9-11, not to mention the widely covered run-in she had with the Capitol Hill Police, the congresswoman is aware that this resolution will likely be ignored and that she will be ruthlessly attacked upon its filing.

“What do you think they are going to do to me this time?” she asks her staff. Everyone uncomfortably shifts in their seats and after no answer comes McKinney explains, “We have to do this because this is simply the right thing to do. The American people do want to hold this man and his office accountable for the crimes they have committed and if no member of congress is willing to do it, than I will.”

It is questionable as to how effective this move could be in gaining support because of her reputation as a firebrand congresswoman and because, ultimately, she is on her way out of office.

The Congresswoman and her staff realize this but hope that by filing the articles of impeachment it will, at the very least, open up a discussion on whether or not President Bush and key members of his administration have committed impeachable offenses and whether our officials should be held to account.

“My duty as a member of Congress is merely to uphold and preserve the constitution and to represent the will of my constituency. Ultimately, it isn’t up to me or any other member of congress – it is up to the American people to decide.”
---
Matt Pascarella is a freelance journalist & producer who was present during the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment that Congresswoman McKinney filed today.

See also Cynthia McKinney's blog entry.

(thanks to Mick Gallagher)