Friday, June 09, 2006

Spiritual Freedom and Scriptures

*******
You wrote,
"How do you interpret the following scriptures:

Matthew 5:17-20
"'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till it be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven...'"

*******
Jesus was getting in some severe trouble with the "powers that be," during his day. Ultimately, his "apostasy" (an antique word for "heresy") was going to get him murdered. Some of the religious leaders of the Jewish establishment would support this atrocity. So, naturally, he wanted to make as much peace as possible with these angry and powerful men. Jesus was a man of peace, profoundly, and was disturbed by the fact that they so hated him. He went as far as he possibly could to embrace everything that was good within the Jewish system and organization.

These words reveal that there was indeed good in that arrangement. These words might have been put in Jesus' mouth after his death by a "Judaizer"-- a Christian who wanted to dominate Christianity by the abandoned Jewish values. These people wanted all Christians to obey all Jewish laws. They were soundly defeated by Paul during the first century.

There were many fine and beautiful laws within the Jewish tradition. It was a good and loving idea not to steal from, envy, or murder others, or to covet their goods and wives. The famous Ten Commandments were this kind of positive, constructive, Love-manifesting law. But not all of the ten thousand traditional laws of Judaism were this practical or loving.

Even if Jesus did say these words, he was not endorsing the entire faith of Judaism. We can admit that certain cults, for example, have some good teachings-- even teachings that are spiritual, even some which are worthy of being repeated. Every religion, and every cult, contains some good and some truth. Otherwise, they would never be able to convert anyone. And conversion is their business.

Jesus was admitting only this. In retrospect, this might look like a feeble, even futile, attempt to "make peace" with the authorities. And clearly, it did not work. For their bigotry and hatred against Jesus could not possibly have been more fierce and ferocious than it was. After hounding and hassling him for years, they finally murdered him.

This was because he rejected much abouth the unjust, foolish, and regressive god-image worshipped by the Jews. He turned his back upon, and fully rejected, the murderous god of their history. The "Love" of Yahweh was simply too conditional, and to parsimonious, to fill the appropriate human need for Love. How, indeed, could the Prince of Peace ever accept such a nightmarish god?

Jesus came to start a new faith. It was, unlike the popular Judaism of his time, a mystical revelation. He did not come simply to destroy Judaism. That would have been a negative, and perhaps harmful, mission. Although Christianity did later convert many Jews, the high purpose of Jesus was to help people, to improve life, and to clear God's name of the horrors with which the Jews had associated Him.

So, although Christianity did threaten Judaism, and Judaism fiercely resisted and persecuted it, Jesus did not see his mission as the destruction, but the fulfillment, of Judaism. He was a smart guy, and realized that its "fulfillment" would destroy traditional Judaism, just as much as if he had "come to destroy" it. Jesus knew that full reconciliation between Judaism and his Way was impossible. The
differences between the two were simply too many, and far too important. But still, for what it was worth, he offered the olive branch of peace to the Jews, saying, in effect, "Let's not get started on the wrong foot. Why can't we be friends-- who agree to disagree?" Or, he might have been saying something like, "You don't have to be disagreeable to disagree."

Still, we are going much too far-- stretching his words all out of shape-- if we interpret this statement as an unquestioning endorsement of everything within the Jewish system.

As noted, it is possible that Jesus did not even say these words; and if he did, it is possible that a later scribe emended or even changed them. How can we tell? To discern this kind of matter, we must know the heart and mind of the Christ, for Jesus was a perfect reflection and embodiment
of the Christ.

If Jesus were quoted as saying, "Kill people when it is convenient," most people know the Spirit of Christ enough that they would immediately reject this statement as an inaccurate quotation. So, the same principle applies in more subtle matters: The Spirit of Christ would never speak against the truth (reality).

So, the final authority on whether to accept a text is not historical, textual, or academic. It is spiritual. It involves the Absolute (Spirit, God, or Christ). If a statement does not feel right, if it does not feel like pure Love, it is not genuine.

People of Love, we of the Spirit, are not dominated unthinkingly by any rule-book. We are absolutely free to accept or reject any teaching, whether it was claimed to have been uttered by Jesus or another great teacher or not. In other words, we are not like the fundies; we use reason, a God-given gift, to create discernment and discrimination.

Here is a spiritual analogy: Recently, a work has been completed, finishing a rendition (version) of The Celestial Song of God. This is a mystical classic from India.

In its beginning, the Lord is said to teach that war does not matter, that one might engage in war, for no one really dies in war. To the follower of the Spirit, this must be rejected-- as not a true teaching of Love. It must be dismissed as what it truly is-- a cultural artifact.

Some writer, during the long history of the text, was trying to justify the horrors of war. Perhaps he or she was simply trying to bring comfort to people raped and ravaged by the brutality of war. But the scribe, even with good intent and motive, dishonestly quoted the Lord to this effect. This was a lie. This was blatant, unreliable falsehood. And any spiritual person, upon reading the text, would recognize this immediately, and would reject the teaching with no hesitation, despite its claim to have been the "word" of the Lord.

We must use the very same combination of reason and compassion when looking at the words ascribed to Jesus. All scholars of the Bible now recognize that there were very many additions, deletions, and other alterations of the ancient texts during their very long history. This was and is inevitable in so long a history, and with such a crucial doc as the Bible.

The Spirit generates Love within us. This creates, and amplifies, our understanding. We dare not abandon Love for intellect, trading wisdom for history, exchanging deep compassion for words written on paper. That would be the true betrayal of our Lord of Love.

Truly spiritual people are so very independent of history that we do not even care about historical trivialities-- such as, was Jesus married? If he was, great! If he was not, great! None of this stuff has even a nano-effect on spirituality-- although it does play havoc with religion. Spiritual people must forever remain completely independent of history. Our spirituality is here and now. In the same way, by the same principle, we must also remain independent of domination by books. The Source of our spirituality is not any book or collection of books. It is the living and active Spirit within our hearts.
*******

Alternative Senator for Ohio

DeWine sides with billionaires over Ohio families

NEWS FLASH: Sen. Mike DeWine votes to protect special tax breaks for Ohio's wealthiest families after voting against college tax credits for working families.

Whose side is Mike DeWine on?

If you are a billionaire, he's your man. But if you're an Ohio student who needs help paying for college, then DeWine is nowhere to be found.

On Thursday, DeWine voted to eliminate the estate tax, which would give the richest 0.5% of Americans a special tax exemption.

This comes a month after he struck a blow to middle-class families by voting for a bill to eliminate the college tax credit.

DeWine has made the repeal of the estate tax a top priority -- even though only 896 Ohioans had estate tax liability in 2003. More than 99% of Ohioans who inherited property paid no estate tax.

Meanwhile, the college tax credit helped more than 130,000 Ohioans pay for school that same year.

The vote was about choices -- whose side are you on? It is clear that Mike DeWine is not on the side of Ohio students.

Why is Mike DeWine not on your side?

It's because DeWine is part of the pay-to-play system in Washington that rewards big contributors and ignores the interests of hard-working Ohio families.

Just take a look at the pay-to-play system in action:

PAY: ExxonMobile has contributed at least $34,000 to DeWine since 1990. Oil companies in total have contributed about $300,000 to him since then.

PLAY: Sen. DeWine votes to permanently repeal the estate tax, which will give the CEOs of the five largest oil companies a $211 million tax break. The CEO of ExxonMobil alone could receive $160 million.

Sherrod has voted against giving special tax breaks to America's wealthiest families. He wants what Ohio parents and students want -- full funding for Pell Grants and school loan programs, so that every Ohioan who wants to attend college is able to do so.

This election will provide voters a clear choice between a defender of corporate special interests and a true champion for Ohio families.

I know where you stand. Help us spread the word to your friends and neighbors.

Together we can make a difference for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Joanna Kuebler
Communications Director
[Paid for by Friends of Sherrod Brown]


Official Website of Sherrod Brown

(Thanks to Mick Gallagher)

Cheap Oil - Gone Forever?

(Thanks to Mick Gallagher.)

CHEAP OIL-- GONE FOREVER?

Chavez rules out return to cheap oil
By Meirion Jones
Producer, BBC Newsnight

If you thought high oil prices were just a blip think again. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has ruled out any return to the era of cheap oil.

In an interview with BBC Newsnight's Greg Palast, Mr Chavez - who is due to host the Opec meeting on 1 June in Caracas - said he would ask the oil cartel to set $50 a barrel as the long term level. During the 1990s the price of oil had hovered around the $20 mark falling low as $10 a barrel in early 1999. [But dubya changed that for his rich oil-buddies.]

"We're trying to find an equilibrium. The price of oil could remain at the low level of $50. That's a fair price it's not a high price," Mr Chavez said.

He will have added clout at this Opec meeting.

Analysis by the US Department of Energy (DoE)-- seen by Newsnight-- shows that, at $50 a barrel, Venezuela, not Saudi Arabia, will have the biggest oil reserves in Opec.


More from BBC News

Boycott Exxon

As you probably know, last week the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow oil companies to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And which oil company has been lobbying the hardest for access to the Arctic Refuge? ExxonMobil.

More than 68,000 activists like you have taken the pledge to boycott ExxonMobil until it stops pushing for policies that hurt our polar bears, sea otters and other wildlife - thank you for your action!

With gas prices averaging $2.87 nationally, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars a week that ExxonMobil can't spend on their anti-wildlife agenda!

Now we need your help once again. Today, ExxonMobil's shareholders begin their annual meeting, and we want to send them a loud, clear message that ExxonMobil needs to change its ways. Can you encourage at least 3 friends to join the boycott of ExxonMobil? Send them this link:
http://go.care2.com/e/KeS/Lv/E.ri
or send them an e-card to spread the
word!

Changing ExxonMobil's ways is within our reach. At the 2004 ExxonMobil annual shareholder meeting, 28.3% of shareholders voted for a resolution calling on the company's board of directors to review how it will meet greenhouse gas reduction targets in countries participating in the Kyoto
Protocol.

Please encourage your friends to boycott ExxonMobil until they stop trying to drill in the Arctic Refuge and along our coasts.

Our decisions at the pump could make a big difference for our wildlife. You've already taken a big first step by letting ExxonMobil know that we won't buy their gas until they stop trying to drill in the Arctic Refuge and fighting efforts to curb global warming. Now, get your friends involved!

Religious Right Holding Health Hostage

Stem cell research could benefit millions of Americans, but the Senate is putting the interests of the religious right above your health.

Alzheimer's, Diabetes, Cancer, Parkinson's, Heart disease......

These are just a few of the many medical conditions that scientists believe stem cell research could treat or even cure. The religious right is opposed to this life saving research. And they are holding our health hostage.

Here's what's happening:

On May 24, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives defied Tom DeLay, the White House and the religious right, passing legislation that increased public funding for stem cell research.

A year later, despite overwhelming public support and a bi-partisan coalition of senators, Majority Leader Bill Frist refuses to hold a vote in the Senate, caving instead to the religious right.

Take action and demand that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - Doctor Frist - stops pandering to the religious right and allows a vote on this crucial legislation today. Click here!

Thank you,

Jessica, Clark and the rest of the DefCon Team

P.S. If you have a story of how stem cell treatment could impact you or someone you love, send it to us! Stories like yours can put the pressure on legislators to stop pandering to the religious right and give up on their opposition to this vital research.

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Why are they so bloodthirsty?

From Mick:
Isn't Saddam gone? No weapons? Doesn't it make ya proud to be an 'Anglo-Christian'? Exactly how different are we from any of these 'bad' guys? Why are we not more angry about all this ?! I sent this story around to everyone last January. everybody must of thought, it couldn't happen again. And I also said, some of these desensitized kids are bloodthirsty. They're trained to kill. But before they ever join up, on false pretenses.(psyched out over 9/11), they watch thousands of hours of violence on tv, movies, and videos. Then bush and his media lied to them, and us--made them hate a people they know nothing about. And no body ever asked them: "How would you like it if a foreign occupation happened here in your neighborhood, by Russia or China? And they hate you, but you don't know why. Because you & your family never hurt anybody--least of all, some aliens from a far away land. Oh How they must miss Mr. Hussein now---and the 'good ol' days''! Because no matter what American propaganda taught us about Saddam, he was our boy there. We installed him as a CIA operative in 1979. And we had no problem with whatever he might have done, especially against Iran.

Anyway you cut it, this is complete insanity. This is just what the nazi Troops did. Over & over again. For every 1 soldier killed, two or three innocent civilians were shot on site. And you see what the outcome for them was.


*****
June 2, 2006
Iraqi Accuses U.S. of 'Daily' Attacks Against Civilians
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.

As outrage over reports that American marines killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year continued to shake the new government, the country's senior leaders said that they would demand that American officials turn over their investigative files on the killings, and that the Iraqi government would conduct its own inquiry.


Read more

(Thanks to Mick Gallagher)

Theft of 2004 -- AND 2008

Theft of 2004 -- AND 2008
(Thanks to Mick Galleghar)

How They Stole Ohio
And the GOP 4-step Recipe to 'Blackwell' the USA in 2008
Abracadabra: Three million votes vanish


June 2, 2006
By Greg Palast

The shoplifting of the last election … and the next one.

This is a fact: On November 2, 2004, in the State of Ohio, 239,127 votes for President of the United States were dumped, rejected, blocked, lost and left to rot uncounted.

And not just anyone's vote. Dive into the electoral dumpster and these "spoiled" votes have a very dark color indeed.

In another life, I taught statistics. And these statistics stank: the raw data tells us that if you are a Black voter, the chance of your losing your vote to technical errors in voting machinery is 900% higher than if you were a white voter.

Any guesses as to whom those African-Americans chose for president on those junked ballots? Check Ohio's racial demographics, do the numbers, and there it is: Kerry won Ohio. And that, too, is a fact. A fact that could not get reported in the USA.

But the shoplifting of those votes in Ohio was just the tip of the theft-berg. November 2, 2004 was a national ballot-box bonfire. In total, over three million votes (3,600,380 to be exact) were cast -- marked, punched, pulled -- YET NEVER COUNTED. I'm not talking about the Ukraine or Uganda. I'm talking about the United States of America "with liberty and justice for all."

Well, not "all." The nine-to-one Black-to-White ballot spoilage rate is a national statistic -- not just an Ohio trick. Last year, I flew to New Mexico to investigate the 33,981 cast but not counted ballots of that state in the 2004 race. George Bush "won" New Mexico by 5,988 votes. Or did he? I calculated that, of the all the ballots rejected and "spoiled," 89% were cast by voters of color. Who won New Mexico? Kerry won -- or he would have, if they had counted the ballots.

But they didn't count them. And that was deliberate. It's in the plan. It's the program. And the program for 2008 is simple. Two million ballots were cast but not counted in the 2000 race. (Over half, 54%, were cast by African-Americans.) In 2004, the GOP kicked it up to THREE million. Get ready, these guys aim high: "four in '06" and "five in '08" looks to be their game plan.

How will they pile up five million un-voters in 2008? Let's start with the three million "disappeared" of 2004:

Step 1: "Spoiling" ballots -- 1,389,231 of them. In the vote-count game, these are called "undervotes" and "overvotes." You can recognize these lost ballots by their hanging chads, punch cards without punches (an Ohio specialty), paper ballots eaten by scanners, and touch screens that didn't know you touched them.

Step 2: Rejecting "provisional ballots"-- 1,090,729 in this pile.
Voters finding themselves at the "wrong" precinct, or wrongly "scrubbed" from voter rolls get these back-of-the-bus ballots first inaugurated in 2002. In '04, provisional ballots were passed out like candy to voters in the poorest precincts. They handed them out -- then threw them away -- one million dumped in all. In Ohio, Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell changed state rules, allowing him to toss out the ballots of legal voters who cast ballots in the wrong precinct although these citizens were told their vote would count after confirming their registration.

Step 3: Not counting absentee ballots -- 526,420 of them. At least, that's what we figure from official stats. But it's anyone's guess how many mailed-in votes were dumped. (However, in one case, in Palm Beach, Florida, Jeb Bush's candidate for Elections Supervisor, Theresa LaPore, counted more absentee votes than absentee ballots mailed in. Not the brightest bulb in the vote-fix biz, that Theresa.)

Step 4: Scrub'm, Purge'm, Block'm. These are the voters who never got to vote at all. This group includes those who found their registrations were never entered on the voter rolls. In Ohio, about one-fourth of those registered by Jesse Jackson's 2004 voter drive, found their registrations delayed beyond the election date or lost.

Add to this un-voter group, those who were wrongly "scrubbed" from registries as "felons." For example, there was Bernice Kines, purged in Florida in 2004 because she was convicted of a felony on July 31, 2009. I repeat: 2009. There was something especially odd about the Ohio felon purge: ex-cons are ALLOWED to vote in that state, Mr. Blackwell.

How many lost their chance to vote by scrubbing, purging and blocking? That's anyone's guess, but one million would not be an unfair estimate -- and that's not included in the 3.6 million tally of ballots uncounted.

Was it deliberate? Oh my God, yes. I'd like you to take a look at the "caging" lists the Republican National Committee concocted to challenge voters with "suspect" addresses. It included page after page of African-American soldiers, like one Randall Prausa, shipped overseas. Mission accomplished, Mr. President?

And there's some new tricks for these old dogs. For the 2006 and 2008, the GOP is pushing new Voter ID requirements. Your signature won't be good enough anymore.

What's wrong with the new ID laws? This: in the 2004 election, 300,000 voters were turned away from the polls for "wrong" ID. For example, in the "Little Texas" counties in New Mexico, if your voter registration included a middle initial but your driver's license had none, you were kicked out of the polling station. Funny, but they only seemed to ask Hispanic voters. We should see the number of voters rejected for ID to quintuple by 2008 based on the new "voting reform" laws recently passed
in several states.

Also, coming to a polling station near you: more caging lists, scrub lists, ID challenge lists and more. Exactly why do you think they are compiling those "War on Terror" and War on Immigration databases? Behind the 2000 felon purge lists and behind the 2004 caging lists were databases from the same companies that now have those homeland security contracts. Are they saving us from Osama -- or from Democrats?

I wish I could give you a book on a page, because information is our weapon: Turn on the lights and the cockroaches scatter. That's why I'm asking you to read RFK's article on the Theft of Ohio -- and GET ANGRY.

Then read, "Armed Madhouse: … The Scheme to Steal '08' -- AND GET READY.


**********
BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast is author of ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, The Scheme to Steal 'O8, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War -- out Tuesday.

Logic of War Crimes in a Criminal War

War turns even the "good guys" into monsters.
Soldiers are trained to be professional killers.
This is so that they can murder for rich old men.
Young men must die to make the rich old men richer.
There is no justice or goodness in the entire process of war.
They should not spend millions training kids just out of high school to be professional killers, and then, react with shock when they kill. Before Iraqis can be murdered on the battlefield, they must be made "subhuman," for no one will kill her sisters and brothers.
The administration has set a hellish example. For it has murdered a hundred thousand innocent civilians, including many women and children. How can it credibly complain when its example is followed by young girls and boys?

(Thanks to Mick Gallagher.)
This from VoteNoWar.com (permission to distribute received):

The Logic of War Crimes in a Criminal War
By: Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and Brian Becker
June 2, 2006

When U.S. marines carried out the savage and systematic execution of Iraqi families and small children in Haditha last November, it was initially reported as a “battle” with “insurgent casualties.” A photo of a kneeling Iraqi civilian moments before he was murdered was taken by a Marine using his cell phone camera. Other pictures of the corpses of small children, families lying in pools of blood in their homes, students gunned down in a taxi are all part of the documentary evidence.

The massacre in Haditha took place one year after a much larger massacre of civilians in Fallujah. Four to six thousand civilians are estimated to have been killed in Fallujah in November 2004, according to credible independent sources reporting from the ground. The truth of Iraq is that there were other massacres almost every week in between the events that have made Haditha and Fallujah famous cities: famous in the way no city wants to become well known throughout the world. The attack on the people of Iraq and ensuing occupation by the United States government has caused the deaths of well over 100,000 Iraqi people (the British medical journal, The Lancet, reported an excess of 100,000 dead eighteen months ago).

“Ethics Training” to Prevent Massacres

Now that the butchery in Haditha is making headlines in the United States, high ranking officials in the Pentagon as well as the President are promising an investigation. They have even announced “ethics training” for combat troops. The implication is that something unusual happened when unarmed civilians, including terrified small children and their mothers who were trying to shield them, were riddled with bullets by U.S. soldiers. Were they rogue soldiers lawlessly breaking ranks from an otherwise pristine mission aimed at liberating Iraqis? That is pure fiction. Those who criticize the management of the war are talking complete nonsense when they say that the actions of these Marines will make it “harder to carry out the mission in Iraq.”

The Haditha massacre will not make the Iraqis think differently about the United States or Bush. It will only confirm their view, an outlook shaped by the cruel, cold-hard reality of the past years.

A Routine Phenomenon

Just this week, on May 31, US soldiers in Iraq “killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad." The AP reports that Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday. Jassim, the mother of two children, and her 57-year-old cousin, Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were killed by the U.S. forces, according to police Capt. Laith Mohammed and witnesses. Her husband was waiting for her at the maternity unit of the hospital when Jassim, pregnant with their child, and her cousin were murdered.

Yesterday, the BBC disclosed new video evidence that U.S. forces massacred another group of Iraqi civilians in the town of Ishaqi in March. The story, carried by Knight-Ridder in March, and denied by the U.S. government thereafter, stated that U.S. troops had rounded-up villagers into a single room of a house and then “executed 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant.” BBC reported June 1 that of the eleven people murdered by U.S. troops, five were children. The soldiers then, “burned three vehicles, killed the villagers’ animals and blew up the house.”

In Afghanistan this week, large masses of people took to the streets throwing rocks at U.S. military vehicles following another incident in which U.S. military personnel raced through Kabul and then rammed passenger vehicles killing at least three people. A top Afghan police officer reported that U.S. soldiers then opened fire indiscriminately directly into the crowd killing at least four more people.

Rejecting the Disney Version of U.S. Foreign Policy

The perception of the U.S. in the Arab world is based on actual information and knowledge of the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan. The U.S. financing and support for the ongoing war waged by the Israeli military against the Palestinian people also contributes to the understanding of the U.S. role among the people of the Middle East. This perception is 100 percent different than the fantasy promoted in the United States. In the United States, facts are not allowed to stand in the way of the official legend.

All the mainstream media, the politicians and even some in the “peace movement” in the United States uphold the Disney version of U.S. imperialism: a fundamentally benign force, motivated by democratic values and a vision of freedom, that is suffering an unexplained outburst of criminality based on stress caused by poor management of the war. Haditha, and Fallujah before it, or Abu Ghraib, are registered as deviant behavior by out of control people. Conveniently they are all rank and file enlisted men and women. No Generals, Secretary of Defense or President need worry.

That every exposed crime is widely accepted to be “deviant” or aberrational in the United States is only a testament to the power of political indoctrination by the media and the government whose economic resources for “opinion-molding” are greater than that of any previous empire in human history.

The Perception of U.S. Imperialism from The Middle East

“The deaths in Haditha, a volatile town in western Iraq, have barely caused a stir in Iraq and much of the Arab world — where American troops are reviled as brutal invaders who regularly commit such acts,” writes AP reporter Hamza Hendawi, in a story filed on May 30, 2006.

The next day a dispatch from AP reporter Kim Gamel, reports the same sentiment, "People in Samarra are very angry with the Americans not only because of Haditha case but because the Americans kill people randomly especially recently," Khalid Nisaif Jassim said.

Closely connected by language, historical and geographic knowledge, and access to more comprehensive media reporting, the Arab people consider the entire war, including its unprovoked initiation by Bush on March 20, 2003, to be a criminal endeavor by large powers against a small but
oil-rich nation. The racist character of the war itself is well recognized throughout the region. Having battled for a century against colonial and semi-colonial domination, the Arab people don’t derive their knowledge about the intentions of Britain or the United States from FOX News or the New York Times.

In the U.S. media, Iraq is treated as a low-intensity war. When U.S. soldiers are killed their deaths are accompanied by a small article. The fact that well more than 100,000 Iraqis have died does not merit blazing headlines. Iraqi suffering is minimized or usually attributed to “terrorists.” Thus, the people of the United States are shielded from that which the Arab people know all too well about the criminal character of the war of aggression.

Fallujah and Hue City, Vietnam

The issue of Fallujah is a case in point. Fallujah is emblematic of the war. It is well understood throughout the Arab world but treated like ancient history by the U.S. media.

On the eve of the assault on Fallujah, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition sent out an email to anti-war activists (November 7, 2004) under the headline: “Top U.S. Marine in Iraq Calls for Massacre in Fallujah.” It reported that Sgt. Major Carlton W. Kent gave an emotional pep-talk to 2,500 Marines who were poised to attack the city. The marines had just notified the people of Fallujah that any male between the age of 15-55 who dared go outside would be automatically killed. “You’re all in the process of making history,” the Sgt. Major exhorted his soldiers. “This is another Hue City in the making. I, have no doubt, if we do get the word, that each and every one of you is going to do what you have always done kick some butt.” (AP, November 7, 2004)

Evoking the events in Hue by U.S. officers, as a motivation for today’s troops, shows the macabre criminality inherent in imperialism’s war for conquest.

Hue was a city in South Vietnam that was a scene of horrific war crimes by military personnel when it was captured by U.S.-led forces in March 1968. U.S. Under-Secretary of the Air Force, Townsend Hoopes, admitted that Hue was left a “devastated and prostrate city. Eighty percent of the buildings had been reduced to rubble, and in the smashed ruins lay 2,000 dead civilians …” (Noam Chomsky’s forward to the papers of the 1967 International War Crimes in Vietnam Tribunal.)

The Machinery of Racism

How can 100,000 people die, how can children be murdered, how can the devastation and destruction of an entire society occur at the hands of the U.S. government without there being a huge outpouring of indignation and condemnation in the U.S. mass media, much less even acknowledgment by so many in the “loyal opposition”? Because the U.S. mainstream media is a corporate dominated propaganda machine that is part and parcel of the imperial establishment and shares its interests. It uses the instrument of racism, a tool that has been fine-tuned by the forces of militarism in the United States for nearly four centuries. The racist demonization of conquered and targeted people has been crafted with the idea of dehumanizing the victims so as to prevent the forging of human solidarity in opposition to the crimes of conquest and Empire. The mass media, always willing to exploit the emotional appeal of death and tragedy that occurs within the United States, can ignore or define the experiences of the people of Iraq as somehow less worthy, the death of Iraqi children as less agonizing, their lives less valuable.

Bush Proclaims that Iraq “is only the beginning” of Endless War

The day after the NY Times front page story revealing the graphic details of the Haditha massacre, George W. Bush said these words about the Iraq war to the West Point graduating class of 2006: “This is only the beginning. The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom, and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people, in every nation.” Reiterating his and Cheney’s theme that the U.S. is now engaged in “endless war,” Bush told the young cadets: “The war began on my watch, but its going to end on your watch.”

While Bush was exhorting the next generation of privileged military officers to enthusiastically embrace his imperial crusade, the reality is that this administration sees in every rank and file enlisted man and woman nothing more than pawns. For the working class youth who make up the bulk of the military, the Bush administration has only callous disregard. Bush is willing to send these young people to kill and be killed while it carries out vicious cut-backs in education, job training and veterans benefits. The rich are always ready to have the working class and poor people do their fighting and dying.

The crimes of the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are as inevitable as the crimes committed by soldiers in imperial armies throughout history. The conquered people refuse to accept their fate. They rise up, they form resistance organizations. They take up arms and conspire to oust the foreign occupiers. They are then branded as terrorists and criminals by the Empire. To the extent that they enjoy popular support among the indigenous population, the population itself is considered “suspect” by
the occupiers.

Civilians thus become a danger. Children and young teenagers can become the “enemy.” The vehicles carrying expectant mothers to the hospital can thus become a threat because they must travel quickly, too quickly for the comfort of the occupying soldiers who are fearful of car bombs.

A Pertinent Revelation this Week: 50 Years After the Fact

In the Korean War, U.S. soldiers gunned down hundreds and possibly thousands of South Korean civilians as they tried to escape the horrors of war. For five decades, the Pentagon and each successive U.S. administration denied these facts. South Korean survivors who tried to press their claims against the United States were labeled traitors and North Korean spies and put into prison for many years. After the killings of No Gun Ri in July 1950 were exposed decades later in the U.S. media, the Pentagon even carried out an “exhaustive” investigation and concluded that the actions were those of inexperienced soldiers. “The deaths and injuries of civilians, wherever they occurred, were an unfortunate tragedy inherent to war and not a deliberate killing.... Soldiers were not ordered to attack and kill civilian refugees in the vicinity of No Gun Ri.” (Department of the Army Inspector General, No Gun Ri Review, Jan. 2001)

But just this week, as the Pentagon begins its new “investigation” into Haditha, a document has come to light that not only reveals the truth of the massacre of Koreans but that it was an act of official U.S. war policy. The day of the mass killings, the US Ambassador to South Korea sent a letter to State Department official Dean Rusk about the military decision arrived at a meeting on July 25, 1950 announcing that Korean war refugees would be shot if they approached US lines. The day after the decision the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment killed hundreds of civilians at No Gun Ri in South Korea.

The Logic of War Crimes

There was a military rationale for killing the civilians at No Gun Ri and in scores of other sites throughout Korea during the war. The U.S. soldiers could not tell whether the civilians were sympathetic to the North Koreans or whether they would permit North Korean soldiers into
their midst.

The Geneva Conventions expressly prohibit the targeting of civilians under any circumstances. But the Pentagon had a bigger political concern than adhering to international law. The fundamental fear of the Pentagon and the White House in Korea, as it was in Vietnam and during the first and current war against Iraq, was that public opinion at home would turn against the imperialist adventure and tie the hands of the warmakers. The logic of their political calculus was that U.S. public opinion would turn against the war directly as a result of a large number of U.S. casualties. This thought took them to the next murderous conclusion: if civilians pose even a remote risk to U.S. soldiers it is better to shoot the civilians first and ask questions later. Dead Korean or Vietnamese or Iraqi civilians will not be as politically damaging back home as dead American soldiers. There is one more side to the logic of war crimes. If the civilian population is sympathetic to the resistance fighters it is necessary to terrorize the civilians as punishment for providing aid or shelter to a guerrilla army. This is not a new story. The Japanese wiped out whole villages and nearly some cities in China as a warning against aiding the communist-led resistance during World War II. The Nazi's policy in Serbia was to kill one hundred Serbs for every German soldier killed by the resistance. Under the direction of John Negroponte, current Director of US Intelligence services, the Salvadoran military carried out large-scale massacres of peasant communities that were considered supportive of the FMLN resistance fighters in El Salvador during the 1980’s. In Vietnam, the CIA organized the Phoenix Program, a clandestine war that assassinated as many 50,000 south Vietnamese who were considered to be members or sympathizers of the National Liberation Front.

The People of the United States Must Act to Stop Imperialist War

There is no investigation, no new training, or change in the way the war and occupation is administered that can stop massacres like Haditha, Fallujah and the day in and day out killings of Iraqis and destruction of their society. The only change that can bring about the hope of building a new future for Iraqis, one of self-determination and eventual peace, is to end the foreign occupation of Iraq and remove the invading army. Every day the U.S. and other troops remain in Iraq the situation grows more dire for the Iraqi people. We must demand that the troops be brought home now and reach out to our friends, families, co-workers and schoolmates to make this demand a powerful and undeniable force. The majority of people of the U.S. now oppose the war in Iraq - but at this very moment, many in the peace movement are urging that all focus turn towards the elections, just as they did two years ago. This is the road to irrelevance and it must be rejected.

The war in Vietnam was not ended because “better politicians” were elected. No one could assert that Richard Nixon was better than anything or anyone. What mattered was that millions of people used every avenue to intensify the mass struggle in the streets and in every community throughout the country. The Vietnamese people were clearly determined to fight until their homeland was free from foreign occupation. Ultimately, the U.S. soldier was only fighting to return to his or her home. The congruence of these factors and the ever-widening mass anti-war movement made the nearly genocidal conflict unsustainable for the Pentagon brass and the occupant of the White House. We must learn and re-learn these lessons and apply them to today. That is the challenge and obligation of the next period.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard is a civil rights attorney and co-founder of the
Partnership for Civil Justice. Brian Becker is the National Coordinator
of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition.

Spiritual Free-lancing and Organized Religion

Originally, religion was supposed to be, ideally, the hand-maiden of spirituality. But it has almost never been so. Religion usually evolves into an "institution" or "organization." When this happens-- and it almost always does-- religion becomes a matter of economics, administration, and politics. The great founding teachers never had this monstrous development in mind when teaching their clear and simple message of Love.

Religion is also about the unhealthy "parental" control of other adults. Arrogant men try to be your "daddies," even after you have grown up. They do not want you to grow up spiritually, and will do everything possible to keep you in spiritual toddlerstates, completely dependent upon them. Religion is about controlling minds, which gives control also of a person's finances. Tragically, religion is most often about greed and power.

Acceptance into a religious faith is always highly conditional. For no faith follows the perfect rule of unconditional Love. (Any religion, no matter how well-intentioned, is only as strong as its weakest link.) So, you must pass an "acid-test" for beliefs when you join an organized religion.

The spiritual Way requires only an interior transformation of the heartmind. But no one sees this; and very much in religion is about impressing other people. That is why it requires such a silly dance" to get into a religion. Religion has never been about kindness or compassion. The truth is, it is not even about "saving" people. It is all about maintaining the "right" dogmas and doctrines.
So, some organized religions do not hesitate to use even cruelty if it will tend to "strengthen the org."

It is simplest, and in most cases, extremely satisfying, to cultivate a personal spiritual life outside of organized religion. But because this teaching cuts off the supply of money, it has been damned as "heresy" or "apostasy" by every organized religion.

Can we love God and people without the organized faith? Of course we can. This is the "secret" that religion has worked hard to cover and to hide from the beginning. For one can have a very full and very rich spiritual life outside the walls of organized religion.

This is very important. One should not simply walk out of a religion that is unsatisfying, without some preparation. Leaving a supporting faith can be traumatic and shocking. One must prepare, long and seriously, for the faith of a free-lancer. One must find and create the selfdiscipline to do spiritual reading, regular meditation, and, most importantly, regular acts of Love and compassion. If you are prepared to take on this large life-task, then you are ready to go it alone. But "flying solo" is not easy, and few will find the courage and wisdom to do it. But it promises huge joy and enormous contentment.

As adults, we are supposed naturally to grow in the direction of spiritual independence. But all of organized religion resists this. They want to keep you "hooked" on the system. They claim that you need "daddies" (priests, pastors, ministers, elders, or gurus) to make decisions for you. An independent grown-up does not need this spiritual slavery, but is free before God (Love) to make any and all spiritual decisions independently. If this is your calling from Love, we are always here to serve.:)

More Supreme Injustice from bush-puppets

Alito Casts Deciding Vote Muzzling Government Whistleblowers

For the nation's 21 million government workers, Tuesday was not a particularly good day. In an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy and joined by the rest of the emerging conservative bloc--including Justice Alito in his first decisive vote--the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the First Amendment offers no protection against retaliation to public employees who, in the course of their duties, blow the whistle on waste, fraud or corruption. Public auditors fired after discovering and disclosing the embezzlement of municipal funds? Police officers demoted after reporting illicit activities by public officials? County engineers terminated after revealing that contractors' work wasn't up to snuff? None of them enjoy constitutional protection any longer. Nor do any other government workers in a dizzying array of whistleblower scenarios.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, No. 04-473, slip op. (U.S. Sup. Ct. Decided May 30, 2006)


The Court majority diminished the free speech rights of government workers, and undermined the country’s abiding interest in safe, competent and corruption-free government offices.

More