Evangelical Christianity Has Been Hijacked
Mood:  bright
Topic: Church and State
'Evangelical Christianity Has Been Hijacked':

An Interview with Tony Campolo

Interview by Laura Sheahen
BeliefNet.com

Friday 12 November 2004

Speaking out on gays, women and more, a progressive evangelical says 'We ought to get out of the judging business.'

Evangelical leader, sociology professor, and Baptist minister Tony Campolo made headlines in the 1990s when he agreed to be a spiritual counselor to President Bill Clinton.

A self-described Bible-believing Christian, he has drawn fire from his fellow evangelicals for his stance on contemporary issues like homosexuality.

He talked with Beliefnet recently about his new book, Speaking My Mind.

Q - It's a common perception that evangelical Christians are conservative on issues like gay marriage, Islam, and women?s roles. Is this the case?

A - Well, there's a difference between evangelical and being a part of the Religious Right. A significant proportion of the evangelical community is part of the Religious Right. My purpose in writing the book was to communicate loud and clear that I felt that evangelical Christianity had been hijacked.

Q - When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become anti-gay? When did it become supportive of capital punishment? Pro-war? When did it become so negative towards other religious groups?

A - There are a group of evangelicals who would say, "Wait a minute. We?re evangelicals but we want to respect Islam. We don?t want to call its prophet evil. We don?t want to call the religion evil. We believe that we have got to learn to live in the same world with our Islamic brothers and sisters and we want to be friends. We do not want to be in some kind of a holy war."

We also raise some very serious questions about the support of policies that have been detrimental to the poor. When I read the voter guide of a group like the Christian Coalition, I find that they are allied with the National Rifle Association and are very anxious to protect the rights of people to buy even assault weapons. But they don?t seem to be very supportive of concerns for the poor, concerns for trade relations, for canceling Third World debts.

In short, there?s a whole group of issues that are being ignored by the Religious Right and that warrant the attention of Bible-believing Christians. Another one would be the environment.

I don?t think that John Kerry is the Messiah or the Democratic Party is the answer, but I don?t like the evangelical community blessing the Republican Party as some kind of God-ordained instrument for solving the world?s problems. The Republican Party needs to be called into accountability even as the Democratic Party needs to be called into accountability. So it?s that double-edged sword that I?m trying to wield.

Q - Are the majority of evangelicals in America leaning conservative because they see their leaders on TV that way? Or is there a contingent out there that we don?t hear about in the press that is more progressive on the issues you just talked about?

A - The latest statistics that I have seen on evangelicals indicate that something like 83 percent of them are going to vote for George Bush and are Republicans. And there?s nothing wrong with that. It?s just that Christians need to be considering other issues beside abortion and homosexuality.

These are important issues, but isn?t poverty an issue? When you pass a bill of tax reform that not only gives the upper five percent most of the benefits, leaving very little behind for the rest of us, you have to ask some very serious questions. When that results in 300,000 slots for children's afterschool tutoring in poor neighborhoods being cut from the budget. When one and a half billion dollars is cut from the "No Child Left Behind" program.

In short, I think that evangelicals are so concerned with the unborn?as we should be?that we have failed to pay enough attention to the born?to those children who do live and who are being left behind by a system that has gone in favor of corporate interests and big money.

So as an evangelical, I find myself very torn, because I am a pro-life person. I understand evangelicals who say there comes a time when one issue is so overpowering that we have to vote for the candidate that espouses a pro-life position, even if we disagree with him on a lot of other issues.

My response to that is OK, the Republican party and George Bush know that they have the evangelical community in its pocket?[but] they can?t win the election without us. Given this position, shouldn?t we be using our incredible position of influence to get the president and his party to address a whole host of other issues which we think are being neglected?

Q - Like what you just said - poverty, or our foreign policy?

A - Exactly. And we would also point out that the evangelical community has become so pro-Israel that it is forgotten that God loves Palestinians every bit as much. And that a significant proportion of the Palestinian community is Christian. We?re turning our back on our own Christian brothers and sisters in an effort to maintain a pro-Zionist mindset that I don?t think most Jewish people support. For instance, most Jewish people really support a two-state solution to the Palestinian crisis. Interestingly enough, George Bush supports a two-state solution.

He?s the first president to actually say that the Palestinians should have a state of their own with their own government. However, he?s received tremendous opposition from evangelicals on that very point.

Evangelicals need to take a good look at what their issues are. Are they really being faithful to Jesus? Are they being faithful to the Bible? Are they adhering to the kinds of teachings that Christ made clear?

In the book, I take issue, for instance, with the increasing tendency in the evangelical community to bar women from key leadership roles in the church. Over the last few years, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken away the right of women to be ordained to ministry. There were women that were ordained to ministry?their ordinations have been negated and women are told that this is not a place for them. They are not to be pastors.

They point to certain passages in the Book of Timothy to make their case, but tend to ignore that there are other passages in the Bible that would raise very serious questions about that position and which, in fact, would legitimate women being in leadership positions in the church. In Galatians, it says that in Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, all are one in Christ Jesus. In the Book of Acts, the Bible is very clear that when the Holy Spirit comes upon the Church that both men and women begin to prophesy, that preaching now belongs to both men and women. Phillip had four daughters, all of whom prophesied, which we know means preaching in biblical language. I?d like to point out that in the 16th chapter of Romans, the seventh verse, we have reference to Junia. Junia was a woman and she held the high office of apostle in the early Church. What is frightening to me is that in the New International Translation of the Scriptures, the word Junia was deliberately changed to Junius to make it male.

I?m saying, let?s be faithful to the Bible. You can make your point, but there are those of us equally committed to Scripture who make a very strong case that women should be in key leaderships in the Church. We don?t want to communicate the idea that to believe the Bible is to necessarily be opposed to women in key roles of leadership in the life of early Christendom.

Q - What position do you wish American evangelicals would take on homosexuality?

A - As an evangelical who takes the Bible very seriously, I come to the first chapter of Romans and feel there is sufficient evidence there to say that same-gender eroticism is not a Christian lifestyle. That?s my position.

Q - So you mean homosexual activity?

A - That?s right. What I think the evangelical community has to face up to, however, is what almost every social scientist knows, and I?m one of them, and that is that people do not choose to be gay. I don?t know what causes homosexuality, I have no idea. Neither does anybody else. There isn?t enough evidence to support those who would say it?s an inborn theory. There isn?t enough evidence to support those who say it?s because of socialization.

I?m upset because the general theme in the evangelical community, propagated from one end of this country to the other--especially on religious radio--is that people become gay because the male does not have a strong father image with which to identify. That puts the burden of people becoming homosexual on parents.

Most parents who have homosexual children are upset because of the suffering their children have to go through living in a homophobic world. What they don?t need is for the Church to come along and to lay a guilt trip on top of them and say ?And your children are homosexual because of you. If you would have been the right kind of parent, this would have never happened.? That kind of thinking is common in the evangelical Church and the book attacks on solid sociological, psychological, biological grounds.

But even if evangelicals came to believe that it was not a choice, how should they approach the topic?

Well, beyond that, they seem to offer an absolute solution to the problem. They are saying, ?We can change every gay. We can change every lesbian.? I have heard enough of the brothers and sisters give testimonies of having changed their sexual orientation to doubt them?I believe them. But that?s rare: people who stand up and say, ?I was gay but Jesus came into my life and now I?m not homosexual anymore.?

But the overwhelming proportion of the gay community that love Jesus, that go to church, that are deeply committed in spiritual things, try to change and can?t change. And the Church acts as though they are just stubborn and unwilling, when in reality they can?t change. To propose that every gay with proper counseling and proper prayer can change their orientation is to create a mentality where parents are angry with their children, saying, "You are a gay person because you don?t want to change and you?re hurting your mother and your father and your family and you?re embarrassing us all."

These young people cannot change. What they are begging for, and what we as Church people have a responsibility to give them, is loving affirmation as they are. That does not mean that we support same-gender eroticism.

Q - What do you wish evangelicals might accept in terms of salvation for non-Christians?

A - We ought to get out of the judging business. We should leave it up to God to determine who belongs in one arena or another when it comes to eternity. What we are obligated to do is to tell people about Jesus and that?s what I do. I try to do it every day of my life.

I don?t know of any other way of salvation, excerpt through Jesus Christ. Now, if you were going to ask me, "Are only Christians going to get to heaven?" I can?t answer that question, because I can only speak from the Christian perspective, from my own convictions and from my own experience. I do not claim to be able to read the mind of God and when evangelicals make these statements, I have some very serious concerns.

For instance, they say unless a person accepts Jesus as his personal savior or her personal savior, that person is doomed forever to live apart from God. Well, what about the many, many children every year who die in infancy or the many children who die almost in childbirth and what about people who are suffering from intellectual disabilities? Is there not some grace from God towards such people? Are evangelical brothers and sisters of mine really suggesting that these people will burn in hell forever?

And I would have to say what about all the people in the Old Testament days? They didn?t have a chance to accept Jesus.

I don?t know how far the grace of God does expand and I?m sure that what the 25th chapter of Matthew says is correct--that there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day as to who receives eternal life and who doesn?t. But in the book I try to make the case that we have to stop our exclusivistic, judgmental mentality. Let us preach Christ, let us be faithful to proclaiming the Gospel, but let?s leave judgment in the hands of God.

But in the book you also mention the decline of mainline churches. Some people would say that this lack of taking a firm stand is wishy-washy, and that if evangelicalism is infected by relativism, that could be its downfall as well.

I didn?t say anything that was relativistic. I am just saying that when we don?t know what we?re talking about, we shouldn?t make absolute statements. And we don?t know how God will judge in the end. We do not know the mind of God.

As for mainline churches declining, my own particular analysis is that they're declining because they have been so concerned about social justice issues that they forgot to put a major emphasis on bringing people into a close, personal, transforming relationship with God. The Pentecostal churches, the evangelical churches, attract people who are hungry to know God, not just as a theology, not just as a moral teacher, not just as a social justice advocate, but as someone who can invade them, possess them, transform them from within, strengthen them for their everyday struggles, enable them to overcome the guilt they feel for things in the past.

Mainline churches have not sufficiently nurtured that kind of Christianity. They believe in it, they articulate it, it?s not where they put enough emphasis. They are not putting enough emphasis on getting people into a personal, I use the word mystical, transforming relationship with Christ.

I think that Christianity has two emphases. One is a social emphasis to impart the values of the kingdom of God in society?to relieve the sufferings of the poor, to stand up for the oppressed, to be a voice for those who have no voice. The other emphasis is to bring people into a personal, transforming relationship with Christ, where they feel the joy and the love of God in their lives. That they manifest what the fifth chapter of Galatians calls "the fruit of the Spirit." Fundamentalism has emphasized the latter, mainline churches have emphasized the former. We cannot neglect the one for the other.

Q - In your book, you put forward a sort of ideal creed for 21st-century evangelicals. What?s most crucial to understand about the additions you made to this creed?

A - The Apostle?s Creed I think is the ultimate measure for Christians. Some say it goes back as far as 1800 years. It has been the standard statement of faith that the Church has maintained, and I wanted to say, "An evangelical is someone who believes in the doctrines of the Apostle?s Creed." However, the thing that evangelicals would add to the Apostle?s Creed is their view of holy scripture. They contend, and I contend, that the Bible is an infallible message from God, inspired. The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and [the Bible] is a message that provides an infallible guide for faith and practice.

And not only that. It's necessary to know Jesus in an intimate and personal way. That's what it means to be an evangelical. I don't think it means evangelicals are necessarily in favor of capital punishment. I'm one evangelical that is opposed to capital punishment. I do not believe being an evangelical means women should be debarred from pastoral ministry. I believe women do have a right to be in ministry. It doesn't mean evangelicals are supportive of the Republican party in all respects, because here's one evangelical who says "I think the Republican party has been the party of the rich, and has forgotten many ethnic groups and many poor people."

I am an evangelical who holds to those three positions [Creed, Bible, personal relationship with Jesus] and is a strong environmentalist. I am an evangelical who raises very specific questions about war in general, but specifically the war in Iraq. The evangelical community has been far too supportive of militarism.

Q - You were criticized when you counseled Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Are you still in touch with Clinton?

A - Yes, and very much in the way I was before: trying to be a faithful follower of Jesus. I think it's the task of Christians to speak truth to power.

The president of the United States called upon me to help him and nurture him into some kind of relationship with God. He obviously had strayed away from what he knew was right, and he called me one day and said can you help me?

I don't know what you're supposed to say to that: "I'm sorry, but evangelicals only pray with Republicans?"

I was appalled that evangelical leaders wrote me nasty letters and said you should have no time for this man after what he's done to this country, to Monica Lewinsky, to his family. I can't understand that mentality. We're talking about being the follower of a Jesus who would never turn his back on any person seeking help.

If you're an evangelical, you should believe that every person, no matter how low or high, is capable of being converted, of repentance.

Q - If John Kerry or George W. Bush were to call you up and ask for your guidance on issues facing America today, what would you tell each of them in turn?

A - To Kerry, I think my major issue would be "Do you understand us? Do you understand evangelicals and why we're so upset about the pro-life issue? Do you understand why we believe all life is sacred?" I'd encourage him to do justice and to do righteousness.

To George Bush, I'd say "The God of scripture is a God who calls us to protect the environment. I don't think your administration has done that very well. The God of scripture calls us to be peacemakers. We follow a Jesus who said those who live by the sword will die by the sword, who called us to be agents of reconciliation."

I would point out to George Bush that the Christ that he follows says "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy"-which doesn't go along with capital punishment.

I would say different things to each candidate, but I would respond instantaneously to the invitation to speak to each of them. All the way to the White House, I would be praying, "God, keep me from chickening out. Help me to not be so overawed by the high office of these people that I fail to recognize I answer to a higher authority."

A Legitimate Recount Effort in Ohio
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Voting
A Legitimate Recount Effort in Ohio
By Steven Rosenfeld
AlterNet.org

Friday 12 November 2004

An effort led by Common Cause and the Alliance for Democracy is underway in Ohio to conduct a statewide recount.

Efforts to launch an official statewide recount of the Ohio presidential vote are underway. While it's unclear if a recount will result in a Kerry victory, it's likely to highlight many flaws in Ohio elections that may have tilted results toward Republicans and against Democrats.

Common Cause of Ohio and the Alliance for Democracy, a progressive coalition, Thursday announced they were launching a recount campaign for Ohio. Columbus, Ohio attorney Cliff Arnebeck, who represents both groups, said both the Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates would seek a recount if the $110,000 filing fee could be raised.

"Common Cause and the Alliance for Democracy are not partisan. The purpose of the recount is to verify the honesty of the process," Arnebeck said. "That is in the interest of anyone who would be declared the winner."

A coalition of progressive groups will hold a public hearing on election abuses this Saturday in Columbus calling on the Kerry campaign to pay for the recount.

Meanwhile, they have created a Web page to collect donations at the Alliance for Democracy site. The Kerry campaign reportedly was sending lawyers to Ohio to look into election irregularities, but Arnebeck said only the public interest groups were now committed to a recount.

While there have been many accounts of problems associated with the Ohio vote, from reports of 90,000 spoiled ballots, to software glitches resulting in more votes tallied than the number of registered voters, to new voters not being notified where their polling places were, to too few voting machines in Democratic strongholds, the only legal process that could immediately address some of these concerns is a recount.

The recount would be just that: a recounting of all the votes cast. If the results change, meaning more votes are added to Kerry's total ? then the official result, what the secretary of state certifies, is changed.

"It's re-certified," Arnebeck said. "If Kerry emerges victorious, he's president." Of course, a certification in Kerry's favor for Ohio won't take away the fact that Bush won the popular vote by 3.5 million votes.

And he clock is ticking on the Ohio process. In coming days, the Ohio secretary of state is expected to announce that the provisional ballots have been counted. A losing candidate for president then has 5 days to request a recount, filing the paperwork and filing fee.

That cost is $10 per precinct, which comes to slightly more than $110,000. As of Friday morning, $35,000 had been raised. There is a possibility that not all Ohio counties will finish the provsional ballot count, which would prompt those seeking the recount to pursue other actions, Arnebeck said.

In Florida in 2000, before the Supreme Court interceded in the election outcome, there was no statewide recount conducted. A coalition of newspapers later analyzed the vote, in essence, doing their own recount.

They found Al Gore had won.

That result was spun by those defending George W. Bush, however, saying that the smaller number of counties where Gore wanted a recount would not have made Gore president.

There is a big difference between this effort and what Bev Harris and Black Box Voting are doing. That group, which is investigating computer voting fraud, is making Freedom of Information Act requests.

That does not have the force of law behind it to change election results, unless it is entered as evidence in litigation sparked by a recount. The recount sought by the Ohio groups can revise the official state count.

There are three new areas where votes can come from in Ohio: absentee ballots, provisional ballots, and computer errors. Arnebeck said he has evidence how in one rural county more computer votes were counted than there were registered voters.

Arnebeck said that the issue has been referred to the FBI.

Arnebeck also said that the provisional ballots are also thought to favor Kerry, adding that this week the Ohio Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was issuing new orders to disqualify provisional ballots if the voter did not enter their dates of birth. That shows how political a supposedly mechanical process already has become.

On the other hand, there are aspects of Ohio's vote that a recount is not likely to resolve. Questions such as what happened to people who did not vote ? because they never received notifications after registering by mail, or because of long lines and too few voting machines in their precincts, may not get addressed, as a recount is a formal procedure where local election officials redo the count.

In Franklin County, where Columbus is located, for example, there was a clear pattern of a shortage of voting machines in Democratic inner city precincts, where new registrations skyrocketed, compared to the more middle-class white, GOP-dominated suburbs.

Deliberately putting too few machines would violate the national Voting Rights Act. But that's hard to prove - especially because the county's election supervisor has said all the local boards are bipartisan. On the other hand, Ohio activists point out that people with longtime GOP ties supervised the county's election.

Still, there are many things that a recount could yield - apart from the possibility of Kerry victory. There is a tremendous need for a plausible explanation of what actually happened on Election Day in Ohio. Kerry's Wednesday morning concession pre-empted that explanation.

"Many people are saying, why bother to do this? The answer is we have not gathered all the facts," Arnebeck said. "Until you recount the votes, and look at the possibility of a sophisticated computer fix, you cannot draw conclusions.

Whatever it costs to properly analyze this is nothing in terms of enabling the country to move forward. They just have to raise the money to officially file the recount request. The case is ready."

More Info on the Draft
Mood:  sad
Topic: Impending Draft
Draft Coming, Students Told
By Susan Elan
The New York Journal News

Friday 05 November 2004

Reinstatement of the draft is imminent, war correspondent and author Christopher Hedges told a crowd of more than 120 students and residents yesterday at Manhattanville College.

"We are losing the war in Iraq very badly, but the Bush administration will not walk away from the debacle without trying to reoccupy huge swaths of the territory they have lost," Hedges said.

While working for The New York Times, he covered fighting in Central America, the Balkans and the Middle East, including Iraq during the first Gulf War.

To regain territory lost in Iraq, it will take double or triple the current 140,000 troops, Hedges said during the last lecture in a series called "The Costs of War."

The reservists and National Guard members who make up half of the U.S. forces are stretched to the breaking point and need relief, he said, and the draft is the only way to assemble the numbers needed.

Reintroduction of the draft will be made in the name of the war on terrorism soon after an attack in the United States or abroad, he predicted.

"The war in Iraq will no longer be an abstraction," he said.

"It will become deeply personal. In the next few weeks look for shifts in administration policy leading in the direction of an escalation of the war."

Hedges encountered no detractors at Manhattanville, unlike his experience at Rockford (Ill.) College in May 2003, when he was booed off the stage while giving a commencement speech shortly after President Bush's battleship announcement that the U.S. mission in Iraq had been "accomplished."

On the contrary, many in the audience last night said they had braved rainy weather to hear Hedges indict the seductiveness of war and the dangers of mindless jingoism as an antidote to their depression over the results of the presidential election.

"It's been a hard week and there are much harder times ahead. That's why it is so important for us all to be together tonight," said Connie Hogarth, who has a peace and justice center on the Manhattanville campus named after her.

"After we finish grieving, we have to get back to working for peace and justice, and an end to this war and its killing."

Hedges' audience remained rapt as he wove poetry, mythology, history and Freudian psychology with anecdotes about colleagues lost on distant battlefields and his own brushes with death.

He criticized military heroic ideals that thrive during war and the way war distorts the human imagination.

In the fervor of war the individual sacrifices thought for a false sense of belonging to something larger, he said.

"At the end of the Vietnam War, we became a better country in our defeat," Hedges said.

"We asked questions about ourselves that we had not asked before. We were humbled, maybe even humiliated. We were forced to step outside of ourselves and look at us as others saw us. And it wasn't a pretty sight."

Those who confuse his anti-war stance with an anti-soldier position are mistaken, Hedges said.

"War in the end is always about betrayal. Betrayal of the young by the old, of soldiers by politicians and idealists by cynics."

Planet Rahab - The Bible Speaks...
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: Down With King Dubya
http://www.sherryshriner.com/planet-rahab.htm

Planet Rahab - Planet X - Lucifer's Seat. Was there another planet in our solar system that disappeared? What happened to it?


Planet Rahab, the mysterious planet that was destroyed thousands of years ago of which is considered by many scientists and theorists today to be the creation and cause of what is known as our asteroid belt. However the asteroid belt could simply be the pieces of destroyed asteroids themselves. Either way, they're going to have to go back to work to figure out what exactly caused the existence of our asteroid belt around the Earth because it wasn't Rahab and I'm going to prove it.
The Bible speaks of an existing planet called Rahab the home of Lucifer, one of the highest ranking cherubs in God's Kingdom. It is widely held to have been located as our fifth planet in the solar system. However Rahab according to what I discovered in the Bible Codes was our sixth planet not our fifth.

Before the creation of Adam, the civilizations of celestial angels lived and cohabitated on the terrestrial planets. Throughout scripture there is a consistent reference to the first dwelling places of some of the ancient sons (and daughters) of God. It's interesting that the Bible writers themselves never mention female angels. Perhaps "sons" was another one of those sweeping generalized terms where the male pronoun was also to include females. There's no doubt there were females created and they were menstrual which also means they could reproduce. These angels created habitations on the Earth, Mars, Rahab, and the Moon .

Ezekial 28:

3 Behold you are wiser than Daniel;
every one of the secret things
is not hidden to you...
15 You were perfect in your ways
from the day you were created,
until iniquity was found in you.
16 By the multitude of your trade
they filled your midst with violence, and you sinned.
So I cast you profaned from the height of God,
AND I DESTROYED YOU,
OH COVERING CHERUB,
FROM AMONG THE STONES OF FIRE...
18 By the host of your iniquities,
by the iniquity of your trade,
you have profaned your holy places;
thus I brought a fire from your midst;

---------------------------

Psalm 148

"You were the anointed cherub
that covers, and I had put you
in the holy height of God...
YOU WALKED UP AND DOWN
IN THE MIDST OF THE STONES OF FIRE...
You were perfect in your ways from the day
you were created, until iniquity was found in you"



My Bible Code research into Planet Rahab uncovered a few things about this past planet. Where else should we go for information but to God Himself and let Him lead us? The Bible is His Record Book. And uncoded correctly, can reveal His mysteries.

The Bible confirms underneath its hidden layers that Rahab was indeed Lucifer's home, his ancient seat of power. He had a mansion there. The planet was a bustling fortress. Probably much like earth is now, the people were busy, it was a nation unto themselves that had turned lukewarm against their creator. They sought to break away and liberate themselves away from their creator and have their own freedom. On this planet they were capable of reproducing. They had an economic system based on money. It was politics and economics, and it was a system Lucifer wanted to turn totalitarian or communistic with all those on the planet worshipping him as God. Lucifer wanted to rule it all, and he did until he got greedy and self-exalted. He usurped God's authority by exalting himself and wanting to be worshipped as God.

Now do you see why there is nothing new about the New World Order? God told us in His Word there is nothing new under the sun. Lucifer failed in his first attempt to run a global communistic empire that worshipped him as God. Now he's going to attempt it again, and he'll have 1260 days allotted time on earth to do it. That's three and a half years from the time he proclaims to the world that he is the long awaited promised Messiah and God. This is the great delusion. In the codes it refers to it as a stumbling block. Who could it be a stumbling block to? Professed believers in Jesus Christ. Why? Because they fall for it. They're wavering in their faith so much that they don't understand right away that this coming Messiah known as the Antichrist is an impersonator of the real Christ and a liar.

Under Lucifer's "I" boasting he fooled the inhabitants of Planet Rahab into believing they could be completely liberated from their creator God if they worshipped him as God instead. In order for liberation, there has to be something to be liberated from. The celestial beings of Planet Rahab were under the Lord God's regulations, and they decided they had had enough of that and wanted to be free from His constraints. So Lucifer tried to cheat the real God through sedition, he became a traitor, and for this the entire lukewarm planet was judged.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north.

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High"

Yet thou shalt be brought to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake the kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? Isaiah 14:12-17.




Most people read this as a future reference point when Satan will shake the kingdoms of the world and turn it into a wilderness. Although he will do it in the future, most overlook that he already did it in the past as well. His rebellion against the Kingship of Yahweh destroyed the nations and civilizations of several planets including the earth at that time.

When Satan and his angels rebelled, God destroyed their literal dwelling places. According to scripture this destruction was swift and decisive with hailstones of fire (see the code). The sixth terrestrial planet which God calls "Rahab" (boaster, pride), was obliterated.

Job 26:11-13:

The pillars of heaven are stunned at His rebuke.
He quiets The sea with his power,
- and by his understanding
He shatters Rahab,
-by His spirit the heavens were beautiful;
His hand forbids the fugitive snake

---------------------------------------

Psalm 89:10 :

You have broken Rahab
in pieces, as one slain:
you have scattered your enemies
with your mighty arm.



Based on the information I obtained from the codes, God saw this rebellion and as a result He revoked their celestial status and annulled Himself from them. They were changed from celestial beings to terrestrial beings. Shocking the inhabitants, He then destroyed the planet with a flood of inflammable hailstones with a vengeance, turning it into a wasteland. The same way He destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah. The planet was also knocked off of it's axis by the pounding hailstones and sent orbiting out of our alignment of planets and into space on its own. Lucifer was allowed to escape to the earth with some of his forces. However many of them were confined to the planet seeking shelter in its hollow cavity and have been imprisoned in it ever since.

And this is the planet that is returning to our solar system. Planet X, or otherwise called Planet Nibiru, is the ancient Planet Rahab! The fallen angels within its cavity are reinforcement forces for Lucifer when he arrives to power on Earth as the Antichrist and become the global world ruler. His forces will help him run, control, and dominate earth.

I had done codes in the past on Planet X and Planet Nibiru. I just simply never made the connection to Rahab until the Lord Himself led me to it on January 17, 2004.

At the time Rahab was destroyed, other Angelic civilizations were destroyed as well that had been in conspiracy with Lucifer to overthrow God's reign. These included Mars and Earth, and perhaps others.

God brought a fire of hailstones upon Satan's midst, in the center of his greatest planetary kingdom. The planet Rahab itself knocked off it's axis and cast out of alignment in our solar system. Hailstones also impacted on the surface of mars rocking the planet causing its oceans to spill over and wash over its dry land. The Martian atmosphere was blasted into space.

On earth virtually the same catastrophes took place, hailstones of fire pounded the surface destroying the cities that had been created by the angels. Long before Adam and Eve even existed or were created.

Jeremiah 4:23-2:

I looked on the earth, and
beheld it formless (laid waste) and void;
and to the heavens, and they had no light.
I looked on the mountains,
and, behold, they quaked.
And all the hills were shaken.
I beheld and lo, there was no man;
and all the cover of the skies had fled.
I looked, and, behold, the fruitful place
was a wilderness; and all its cities
were broken down before the face of Jehovah,
before his glowing anger. For so Jehovah has said.
The whole land shall be a desolation;
yet I will not make a full end.

Jeremiah looked into the ages before Adam and described the destruction of the earth. There were no men, (descendents of Adam), yet there had been a fruitful creation where cities had once been and which were destroyed by God's wrath. Who dwelt in these cities? Angelic civilizations. They were the angelic host called the B'nai Elohim, that existed in a perfect state on earth before the rebellion.
The same words of Genesis 1:2 "and the earth was formless and void", are written in Jeremiah 4:26. In Genesis 1:1 it says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In the next sentence it reads, "and the earth was without form, and void" in other words, formless and void and it is in error in most English translations. It should read, "and the earth became formless and void." The Hebrew word translated "was formless" in English versions of the Bible is "toh-ho" a verb which means, "to lay waste". It had once been a vibrant planet, but now it laid waste. Until God re-created it again.

After Satan's kingdoms were destroyed, many of the rebellious angels were bound and held until the time of judgment, the Day of the Lord. The end of the age when God gathers rebel angels on earth to receive His wrath. Other factions of the rebel angels continued existing with the ability to travel in the atmosphere outward from earth, space, and amongst the planets "the stones of fire". These angels not only lost their homes, but they lost their angelic forms as well and were cursed to look like ugly beings and creatures. They lost their beauty.

Many people get the groups of fallen angels confused and group them all together. This is not so. The Book of Enoch, quoted by Jude the brother of Jesus, and considered an important work by the early Christian Church, details the fall of the Watchers and the creation of their offspring with humans.

Lucifer's rebellion involving 1/3 of the angels, happened before the re-creation of the earth. After the earth was re-created, a second group of angels, called The Watchers rebelled against God and left their first estate (heaven) to cohabitate with the women on earth.

These Watchers were judged and some were punished by being held in Tartarus or in chains under the earth. Others were allowed to inhabit the second heavens. Watchers were falling before the flood and after the flood (Gen. 6:4). Even to this day Watchers can fall from heaven and lose their place. All angels are created with free will and are not forced to serve God, but if they rebel against Him, they are cast out of heaven forever. The Watchers were not cursed with losing their beauty. Many have described them, also known as Nordics, as being very tall, blond hair and blue eyed and looking very human. They are referred to as the humanoid looking alien races.

One has to wonder why the Book of Enoch was left out of the Canonized books approved by Constantine and the early RCC. Were they purposely trying to cover up the existence of the Watchers? And if so, was it to keep the people blind of thier past..so they wouldn't recognize the lies of the future?

Crossing the Church-State Line
Mood:  blue
Topic: Church and State
Crossing the Church-State Line
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com

Thursday 11 November 2004

Thomas Jefferson warned of the dangers of becoming a "priest-ridden people," but a conservative clergy was essential to Bush's victory.

The election of 2004 marks the rise of a quasi-clerical party for the first time in the United States.

Ecclesiastical organization has become transformed into the sinew and muscle of the Republican Party, essential in George W. Bush's reelection.

His narrow margins in the key states of Florida, Iowa and Ohio, and elsewhere, were dependent upon the direct imposition of the churches.

None of this occurred suddenly or by happenstance.

Nor was this development simply a pleasant surprise for Bush.

For years, he has schooled himself in the machinations of the religious right, and Karl Rove has used the command center of the White House as more than its Office of Propaganda.

Bush's clerisy represents an unprecedented alliance of historically anti-Roman Catholic, nativist evangelical Protestants with the most reactionary elements of the Catholic hierarchy.

Preacher, priest and politician have combined on the grounds that John F. Kennedy disputed in his famous speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960.

Every principle articulated by Kennedy has been flouted and contradicted by Bush:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President - should he be Catholic - how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope or ... any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials."

From the White House, Rove operated a weekly conference call with selected religious leaders.

A WEEKLY CONFERENCE CALL WITTH SELECTED RELIGIOUS LEADERS !!! THIS IS PALASTINE AND ISRAELI SHIT FOLKS! MJK

Evangelical churches handed over their membership directories to the Bush campaign for voter registration drives.

According to the Washington Post, "clergy members attended legal sessions explaining how they could talk about the election from the pulpit."

A group associated with the Rev. Pat Robertson advised 45,000 churches on how to work for Bush.

HOW TO WORK FOR BUSH ?!?!?! MY GOD IN HEAVEN !!!

One popular preacher alone sent letters to 136,000 pastors advising them on "non-negotiable" issues - gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion - to mobilize the faithful.

The faithful ?!?! You mean "The PROGRAMMED"... Cult shit! -MJK

Perhaps the most influential figure of all was the Rev. James Dobson, whose radio programs are broadcast daily on more than 3,000 stations and 80 TV stations, and whose organization has affiliates in 36 states, and this year created a political action committee to advance "Christian citizenship."

BUSH USING THE MEDIA AND THE CHURCHES.. But, THE MOST POPULAR CHURCHES THAT TELEVISE! Right? MY GOD! -MJK

On June 4, Bush traveled to see the pope.

In another meeting that day, with Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, according to a Vatican official,

Bush "complained that the U.S. bishops were not being vocal enough in supporting [Bush] on social issues like gay marriage and abortion," and suggested to Sodano that the Vatican "push the bishops."

The Vatican was astonished at the brazen pressure and did not accede.

Nonetheless, more than 40 conservative bishops worked in league with the Bush campaign against John Kerry - part of a crusade against their own declining moral authority.

The American church is in crisis as Catholic opinion on abortion and stem cell research leans closer to that of the general public.

And the exposure of rampant pedophilia among priests has undermined traditional belief in the church's sanctity.

Electing a liberal Catholic as president would have been a severe blow.

So conservative bishops denounced Kerry, spoke of denying him Communion and even talked of excommunication.

Sunday after Sunday, from thousands of pulpits, epistles were read and sermons delivered telling parishioners it was sinful to vote for candidates who supported gay marriage and abortion.

The Catholic Kerry received 5 percent less of the Catholic vote than the Southern Baptist Al Gore did four years ago.

In the crucial state of Ohio, where an anti-gay-marriage initiative was on the ballot, Bush won two-thirds of the "faithful" Catholic (those who attend mass every week) vote and 55 percent of the Catholic total.

Combined with the support of 79 percent of white evangelicals, this gave him his critical margin nationally and in the swing states.

The religious right is not a majority and hardly a "silent majority," but it was indispensable to Bush's victory.

Across the country, it has become the most energetic, reliable and productive part of the Republican organization.

The ultimate value in its values-based politics is power, just as it was worldly power that sustained the medieval church, and the assertion of that power began within days after the election.

When moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is seeking the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would oppose any nominee to the Supreme Court who would seek to outlaw abortion (a nomination that might come soon, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist is dying), Dobson denounced Specter, "He is a problem and he must be derailed."

Who will rid the president of this troublesome senator?

Almost instantly, Specter clarified his position, announcing that he meant no such thing and that he had supported many judges who were against abortion.

"History, I believe," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

But we're not all Jeffersonians now.

The Architects of Defeat
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Politics
The Architects of Defeat
By Arianna Huffington
The Los Angeles Times

Thursday 11 November 2004

For Kerry's team, it was the economy. Stupid.

Twelve days before the election, James Carville stood in a Beverly Hills living room surrounded by two generations of Hollywood stars.

After being introduced by Sen. John Kerry's daughter, Alexandra, he told the room - confidently, almost cockily - that the election was in the bag.

"If we can't win this damn election,"

the advisor to the Kerry campaign said,

"with a Democratic Party more unified than ever before, with us having raised as much money as the Republicans, with 55% of the country believing we're heading in the wrong direction, with our candidate having won all three debates, and with our side being more passionate about the outcome than theirs - if we can't win this one, then we can't win shit! And we need to completely rethink the Democratic Party."

Well, as it turns out, that's exactly what should be done.

But instead, Carville and his fellow architects of the Democratic defeat have spent the last week defending their campaign strategy, culminating on Monday morning with a breakfast for an elite core of Washington reporters.

At the breakfast, Carville, together with chief campaign strategist Bob Shrum and pollster Stan Greenberg, seemed intent on one thing - salvaging their reputations.

They blamed the public for not responding to John Kerry's message on the economy, and they blamed the news media for distracting voters from this critical message with headlines from that pesky war in Iraq.

"News events were driving this," said Shrum.

"The economy was not driving the news coverage."

But shouldn't it have been obvious that Iraq and the war on terror were the real story of this campaign?

Only these Washington insiders, stuck in an anachronistic 1990s mind-set and re-fighting the '92 election, could think that the economy would be the driving factor in a post-9/11 world with Iraq in flames.

That the campaign's leadership failed to recognize that it was no longer "the economy, stupid," was the tragic flaw of the race.

In conversations with Kerry insiders over the last nine months, I've heard a recurring theme:

that it was Shrum and the Clintonistas (including Greenberg, Carville and senior advisor Joe Lockhart) who dominated the campaign in the last two months and who were convinced that this election was going to be won on domestic issues, like jobs and healthcare, and not on national security.

As Tom Vallely, the Vietnam War veteran whom Kerry tapped to lead the response to the Swift boat attacks, told me:

"I kept telling Shrum that before you walk through the economy door, you're going to have to walk through the terrorism/Iraq door. But, unfortunately, the Clinton team, though technically skillful, could not see reality - they could only see their version of reality. And that was always about pivoting to domestic issues. As for Shrum, he would grab on to anyone's strategy; he had none of his own."

Vallely, together with Kerry's brother, Cam, and David Thorne, the senator's closest friend and former brother-in-law, created the

"Truth and Trust Team."

This informal group within the campaign pushed at every turn to aggressively take on President Bush's greatest cl.

his leadership on the war on terror.

"When Carville and Greenberg tell reporters that the campaign was missing a defining narrative,"

Thorne told me this week, "they forget that they were the ones insisting we had to keep beating the domestic-issues drum.

So we never defended John's character and focused on his leadership with the same singularity of purpose that the Republicans put on George Bush's leadership.

A fallout of this was that the campaign had no memorable ads.

In a post-election survey, the only three ads remembered by voters were all Republican ads - and that was after we spent over $100 million on advertising."

Cam Kerry agrees.

"There is a very strong John Kerry narrative that is about leadership, character and trust. But it was never made central to the campaign," he said.

"Yet, at the end of the day, a presidential campaign - and this post-9/11 campaign in particular - is about these underlying attributes rather than about a laundry list of issues."

It was the "Truth and Trust Team" that fought to have Kerry give a major speech clarifying his position on Iraq, which he finally did, to great effect, at New York University on Sept. 20.

"That was the turning point," Thorne, who was responsible for the campaign's wildly successful online operation, told me.

"John broke through and found his voice again. But even after the speech the campaign kept returning to domestic issues, and in the end I was only able to get just over a million dollars for ads making our case."

Despite a lot of talk about "moral values," exit polls proved that Iraq and the war on terror together were the issues uppermost in people's minds.

And therefore as Thorne and Vallely, among others, kept arguing, if the president continued to hold a double-digit advantage on his leadership on the war on terror, he would win.

But those in charge of the Kerry campaign ignored this giant, blood-red elephant standing in the middle of the room and allowed themselves to be mesmerized by polling and focus group data that convinced them the economy was the way to go.

"We kept coming back from the road," said James Boyce, a Kerry family friend who traveled across the country with Cam Kerry, "and telling the Washington team that the questions we kept getting were more about safety and Iraq than healthcare.
But they just didn't want to hear it. Their minds were made up."

Boyce, along with Cam Kerry, were instrumental in bringing to the campaign four of the more outspoken 9/11 widows, including Kristin Breitweiser, who had provided critical leadership in stopping the Bush administration from undermining the 9/11 Commission.

"We told the campaign," Breitweiser told me, "that we would not come out and endorse Kerry unless he spoke out against the war in Iraq. It was quite a battle. In fact, I got into a fight with Mary Beth Cahill on the phone. I actually said to her: 'You're not getting it. This election is about national security.' I told her this in August. She didn't want to hear it."

The campaign's regular foreign policy conference calls were another arena where this battle was fought, with Kerry foreign policy advisor Richard Holbrooke taking the lead against the candidate coming out with a decisive position on Iraq that diverged too far from the president's.

Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart consistently argued against Holbrooke, and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden expressed his disagreement with this ruffle-no-feathers approach directly to Kerry.

But until the Sept. 20 speech in New York, it was Holbrooke who prevailed - in no small part because his position dovetailed with the strategic direction embraced by Shrum and campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill.

Jamie Rubin, the Clinton State Department spokesman, had also argued that Kerry should stick close to the Bush position, and even told the Washington Post that Kerry, too, would probably have invaded Iraq.

Kerry was reportedly apoplectic but did not ask for Rubin's resignation, thereby letting the damage linger for two weeks before Rubin told Ron Brownstein of The Los Angeles Times that he was not speaking for the candidate.

Just how misguided the campaign's leadership was can be seen in the battle that took place between Vernon Jordan, the campaign's debate negotiator, and Cahill and Shrum.

"They were so opposed," someone close to the negotiations told me, "to Jordan's accepting the first debate being all about foreign policy, in exchange for a third debate, that Jordan and Cahill had a knock down, drag out argument. It was so bad that Jordan had to send her flowers before they could make up."

It was a familiar strategic battle with Jordan siding with those who believed that unless Kerry could win on national security, he would not win period.

Behind the scenes, former President Clinton also kept up the drumbeat, telling Kerry in private conversations right to the end that he should focus on the economy rather than Iraq or the war on terror, and that he should come out in favor of all 11 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage - a move that would have been a political disaster for a candidate who had already been painted as an unprincipled flip-flopper.

Sure, Kerry spoke about Iraq here and there until the end of the race (how could he not?), but the vast majority of what came out of the campaign, including Kerry's radio address 10 days before the election, was on domestic issues.

Another good illustration of how the clash played out was the flu vaccine shortage, which ended up being framed not as a national security issue (how can you trust this man to keep you safe against biological warfare when he can't even handle getting you the flu vaccine?), but as a healthcare issue with the Bush campaign turning it into an attack on trial lawyers.

"This election was about security," Gary Hart told me.

But when he suggested that Kerry should talk about jobs and energy and other issues in the context of security, Hart said, he was "constantly confronted with focus group data, according to which the people wanted to hear a different message focused on the economy."

The last few days of the campaign, in which national security dominated the headlines - with the 380 tons of missing explosives in Iraq, multiple deaths of U.S. soldiers, insurgents gaining ground and the reappearance of Osama bin Laden - show how Kerry could have pulled away from Bush if, early on, his campaign had built the frame into which all these events would have fit.

How the campaign handled the reappearance of Bin Laden the Friday before the election says it all.

"Stan Greenberg was adamant," a senior campaign strategist told me, "that Kerry should not even mention Osama. He insisted that because his polling showed Kerry had already won the election, he should not do anything that would endanger his position. We argued that since Osama dominated the news, it would be hard for us to get any other message through. So a compromise was reached, according to which Kerry issued a bland statesman-like statement about Osama (followed by stumping on the economy), and we dispatched Holbrooke to argue on TV that the reappearance of Bin Laden proved that the president had not made us safer."

As at almost every other turn, the campaign had chosen caution over boldness.

Why did these highly paid professionals make such amateurish mistakes?

In the end, it was the old obsession with pleasing undecided voters (who, Greenberg argued right up until the election, would break for the challenger) and an addiction to polls and focus groups, which they invariably interpreted through their Clinton-era filters.

It appears that you couldn't teach these old Beltway dogs new tricks. It's time for some fresh political puppies.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arianna Huffington's latest book is "Fanatics and Fools: the Game Plan for Winning Back America" (Miramax).

The Curse Of Bush II : The Devastion Will Be Extreme...
Mood:  quizzical
Topic: Politics
The Curse of Bush II
By Dennis Jett
Salon.com

Monday 08 November 2004

Yes, the devastation will be extreme.

The good news?

He'll sow his own destruction.


At some point in the next four years there will be a great scandal that will make Watergate look like a fraternity prank.

All the elements are already in place.

During its first term, the Bush administration took the approach that its policies were divinely inspired and above reproach even though George W. Bush had lost the popular vote in 2000 by over half a million votes.

During the current election administration officials began to crow about Bush's having received more votes than any other president in history before the polls had closed.

The fact that his opponent got the second highest number of votes of any candidate ever won't slow the incumbent down for a moment.

President Bush waves during a victory rally Wednesday in Washington.

(Photo: Ron Edmonds / AP Photo)


In his acceptance speech, Bush spoke of his "duty to serve all Americans."

Vice President Cheney, however, noted that Bush ran on a clear agenda and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.

Therefore Bush's statement that "a new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation" will last as long as the echo of those words did in the auditorium where he gave his victory speech.

At one of his rare press conferences, a day later, Bush said:

"I've earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it."

It's clear Bush and Cheney see this mandate and their moral certainty as all they need to justify anything they do.

That mandate will be used to return to business as usual:

using the resources of government to serve the core Republican constituencies and to enrich those in power politically and economically.

More money will be funneled to the religious right and favored defense contractors.

Forty percent of the Pentagon's budget already goes to Halliburton and other companies in no-bid contracts, and that percentage will increase as social programs are cut to spend more on the military.

Bush stressed in his speech that reforming the tax code and Social Security are his priorities for the next term for a reason.

Shifting even more of the tax burden to the middle class is a way to reward the wealthy for their support.

And better yet, it comes with no political cost, since Bush's moral masses apparently worry more about the sanctity of life in a petri dish than their economic self-interest.

Privatizing Social Security will generate billions in commissions for the financial services industry.

And a portion of those profits will be faithfully recycled as campaign contributions to those who made the windfall possible.

Subjecting people's retirement income to the vagaries of the marketplace will pale in comparison to subjecting people's freedoms to the vagaries of the government's security apparatus.

Six months ago the Justice Department was arguing that Yaser Hamdi, who was born an American citizen, was so dangerous that he should be denied every one of his most basic civil liberties.

When the Supreme Court said even Hamdi deserved his day in court, Justice shipped him back to Saudi Arabia and gave him his freedom rather than go before a judge to argue that someone who at best was a Taliban foot soldier was a grave threat to the republic.

But any abuse is permissible if the administration decrees someone an enemy of the state because we are at war - and we will be at war until Bush decrees otherwise.

According to the White House's lawyers, the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war do not apply.

Any obligation, be it law or international treaty, can be ignored if it is inconvenient.

Torture can be outsourced and, even when done by Americans, is permissible as long as the intent is not to murder.

Since the intent of torture is to extract information, murder is never the goal, and so the circular logic winds up back where it wanted to be.

The ends justify any means and the ends can be defined to be whatever is most convenient for the government.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the coming scandal, whether financial or merely moral, is that it may well go undetected and unreported.

With solid majorities in both houses, a partisan Republican Congress will cease to provide a check or balance on the power of the executive branch.

To call the Republicans in Congress the lap dogs of the White House is to insult Chihuahuas everywhere - they at least bark on occasion.

It is no surprise that Bush has been the first president since the earliest days of the republic not to use his veto power.

With ethically challenged Majority Leader Tom DeLay having an even larger majority in the House, there will be no challenge to the administration from that quarter.

Normally the judiciary could be counted upon to play its constitutional role and provide some brake on abuse of power by the White House.

We are, however, only a couple of nominees away from an Antonin Scalia-Clarence Thomas majority that believes in the unchecked power of the executive branch.

Given that the administration is so assured of its own virtue and correctness, it sees no need to share what it is doing with the American public.

As a report by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., recently pointed out, the administration has waged an unprecedented assault on the public's right to know.

By restricting access to information and vastly expanding what is being classified, the administration has choked off public oversight of what the government is up to.

Some might think that whistleblowers will come forward and provide the information the public needs to know.

They will only if they have a particularly strong desire to commit career suicide.

FBI whistleblowers have been sent off to bureaucratic Siberias.

And for those who can't be assaulted directly, there are other tactics, like attacking the person's family.

When retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson pointed out that Bush was using a report, known to be false, that Iraq had sought to acquire uranium from Niger, the administration attempted to discredit him.

When that didn't work it thought nothing of damaging national security by revealing that his wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover CIA employee.

Meanwhile, the FBI has spent months investing Halliburton's contracts and years looking into the alleged leaking by Larry Franklin, a midlevel Pentagon intelligence analyst, of classified information to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying firm tied to Israel's far right.

Another Pentagon leak that has not been clarified is how its erstwhile favorite Iraqi exile, Ahmed Chalabi, learned the United States had broken Iran's diplomatic codes.

He is said to have passed this information on to Iran in order to ingratiate himself to another patron.

Even when a leaker is identified, the damage done might never be made clear.

A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani who helped his country develop nuclear weapons, admitted on television that he provided nuclear-related information to other countries.

Bush claimed to have brought him to heel as an accomplishment of his war on terror.

But Khan was pardoned immediately by Pakistani President Musharraf; he has been under house arrest and kept away from the press ever since.

The White House knows the press will drop most stories after a couple of news cycles with nothing new and that stalling can stave off any lasting embarrassment.

At most a couple of small fish wind up taking the fall - as has happened in the case of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Apparently staff sergeants are the highest-ranking responsible officials in our armed forces.

Can the Washington press corps be depended upon to uncover any further administration wrongdoing?

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used the Watergate scandal to vault from obscure reporters to media stars.

Today's media, however, are largely either compromised or cowed. Corporate interests dictate what Fox News portrays as fair and balanced, which is why its viewers are far less well informed than those of competing networks.

But it would be as much a mistake to think that people use the media to inform themselves as it would be to think that the media only seek to present the truth.

The bottom line drives the latter effort. And many readers, viewers and listeners would rather have their worldview validated than be presented with conflicting information.

What's more, never tiring of screaming about the liberal bias of the press, the right has successfully beaten much of it into submission.

And the right sees no inconsistency in using its domination of talk radio, cable television and pathetically predictable print outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdock's tabloids and the Washington Times to do it.

The press is now so timid that investigative reporting takes a back seat to providing an echo chamber for administration spokesmen in the name of balance.

And while its foreign policy has been a failure of monumental magnitude, the administration has been relentlessly successful at filling the airwaves with its alternative version of reality.

When the New York Times reported that 380 tons of specialized high explosives, one pound of which was used to bring down Pan Am 103, had been left to be looted in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, the reaction by the administration's surrogates in the press was to attack.

They said it was a liberal media October surprise and that Saddam Hussein or maybe the Russians had moved the explosives before the war.

The Pentagon trotted out a couple of middle-grade officers to fill the air with smoke and claim they had not seen the explosives or had detonated several tons of them.

That neither officer knew anything about the disposition of the 380 tons in question was irrelevant, as the press felt obliged in the interests of balance to aid in the obfuscation.

By the time a Minnesota television station came up with videotape showing that the explosives were still under International Atomic Energy Agency seals after American troops had arrived, that incontrovertible proof was lost in the haze.

So don't look to the press to provide clarity or truth about the coming scandals.

If there is any silver lining, it is that zealots without constraints will eventually hang themselves on their own excesses.

While you can fool most of the people twice, you can't do it forever.

This administration loves to talk about Saddam's mass graves even though the most recent ones date from the mid-1990s.

They never mention the estimated 100,000 Iraqis, half of them women and children, who have been killed while being liberated.

But parallel realties can be constructed and maintained for only so long.

Eventually more people will realize that the Republican morality has no more depth than Bush's intellectual curiosity.

Then new ayatollahs will spring up and try to claim the mantle of the demolished majority, but they will also fail.

Eventually the people will figure out that taxes are the price we pay for a safe and just society and that morality, like democracy, has to spring from within rather than be imposed from above.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Jett is a 28-year veteran of the U.S. State Department who served as ambassador to Peru and Mozambique. The author of "Why Peacekeeping Fails," Jett is now the dean of the University of Florida International Center.

Worst Voter Error Is Apathy toward Irregularities
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: Firestarter - The Prodigy
Topic: Voting
Worst Voter Error Is Apathy toward Irregularities
By Donna Britt
The Washington Post

Friday 12 November 2004

Is anyone surprised that accusations of voter disenfranchisement and irregularities abound after the most passionately contested presidential campaign in memory?

Is anybody stunned that the mainstream media appear largely unconcerned?

To many people's thinking, too few citizens were discouraged from voting to matter.

Those people would suggest that not nearly enough votes for John Kerry were missed or siphoned away to overturn President Bush's win.

To which I'd respond:

Excuse me -- I thought this was America.

Informed that I was writing about voter disenfranchisement, a Democratic friend admitted,

"I'm trying not to care about that."

I understand.

Less than two weeks after a bruising election in a nation in which it's unfashionable to overtly care about anything, it's annoying of me even to notice.

But citizens who insist, election after election, that each vote is sacred and then shrug at hundreds of credible reports that honest-to-God votes were suppressed and discouraged aren't just being hypocritical.

They're telling the millions who never vote because "it doesn't matter anyway" that they're the smart ones.

Come on.

If Republicans had lost the election, this column would be unnecessary because Karl Rove and company would be contesting every vote.

I keep hearing from those who wonder whether Democrats are "too nice," and from others who wonder whether efforts by the mainstream media to be "fair and balanced" sometimes render them "neutered and less effective."

Perhaps.

But the much-publicized voting-machine error that gave Bush 4,258 votes in an Ohio precinct where only 638 people cast ballots preceded a flood of disturbing reports, ranging from the Florida voting machine that counted backward to the North Carolina computer that eliminated votes.

In Ohio's Warren County, election officials citing "homeland security" concerns locked the doors to the county building where votes were being counted, refusing to allow members of the media and bipartisan observers to watch.

Bush won the county overwhelmingly.

Much of the media dismisses anxiety over such irregularities as grousing by poor-loser Democrats, rabid conspiracy theorists and pouters frustrated by Kerry's lightning-quick concession.

Some of it surely is.

But more people's concerns are elementary-school basic -- which isn't coincidental since that's where many of us learned about democracy.

We feel that Americans mustn't concede the noble intentions upon which our nation was founded to the cynical or the indifferent.

We believe in our nation's sacred assurance that every citizen's voice be heard through his or her vote.

The point isn't just which candidate won or lost.

It's that we all lose when we ignore that thousands of Americans might have been discouraged or prevented from voting, or not had their votes count.

If it were us, we'd be screaming bloody murder.

Yesterday, Lafayette Square was the scene of a lively rally at which dozens of upbeat, mostly older-than-25 protesters organized by ReDefeatBush.com heard democracy-praising singers, rappers and speakers.

Protester Susan Ribe, 33, a Wheaton tax researcher, said that though she's "open-minded" to the possibility that election results might be correct, she believes that reports of irregularities suggest "there's the need for a serious investigation."

Election Protection, the nonpartisan coalition of civil rights organizations that sent 25,000 poll monitors across the nation to ensure that registered voters could cast their ballots, received hundreds of reports of Election Day abuses.

Some were from voters who said they repeatedly pressed the "Kerry" button on their electronic voting screens, only to have "Bush" keep lighting up.

Others said that though they pushed "Kerry," they were asked to confirm their "Bush" vote.

There were calls about a Broward County, Fla., roadblock that denied voters access to precincts in predominantly black districts, and reports from hundreds who said they'd registered weeks before Florida's October deadline yet weren't on the rolls.

Why aren't more Americans exercised about this issue?

Maybe the problem is who's being disenfranchised -- usually poor and minority voters.

In a recent poll of black and white adults by Harvard University professor Michael Dawson, 37 percent of white respondents said that widely publicized reports of attempts to prevent blacks from voting in the 2000 election were a Democratic "fabrication."

More disturbingly, nearly one-quarter of whites surveyed said that if such attempts were made, they either were "not a problem" (9 percent) or "not so big a problem" (13 percent).

Excuse me?

Electronic, paper-trail-free voting is a danger to democracy that the United States can, and I believe will, address.

But not giving a damn about fellow citizens' votes?

Election Protection volunteer Bernestine Singley, a Texas-based writer-lawyer I know, was torn between elation and outrage on Nov. 2 as she monitored polls in three Florida precincts.

Inspiring to Singley were hundreds of volunteers, most of them white, who'd traveled hundreds of miles to ensure the inclusion of minority voters.

She felt stirred by scores of young, black voters whose attitude, she says, was, "I don't care how long I have to stand in line before I do what I came here to do."

Singley's outrage was sparked by clearly hostile white poll workers, and the police officer who stood -- illegally -- by a polling place door, hand on his revolver.

Did I mention the guy who shoved her?

After watching Singley assist voters for hours, a scowling, white-haired 70-something poll worker patronizingly suggested that she was not a poll monitor.

When she replied that he knew exactly what she was doing, he rammed his chest into hers, shoving her backward.

Pushing right back, Singley told the man, "You better get off me."

He did.

Minutes later, Singley says the man told another poll worker within her hearing:

"I don't know why she thinks I know who she is. They all look alike to me."

Excuse me -- is this 2004 or 1954?

Ironically, if all Americans did look alike -- if "black" and "white" and "poor" and "well-to-do" didn't exist -- outrages such as those would happen much less often.

When they did, many more Americans would fight to ensure they never happened again.

Informed Rebuttal From The New American Revolution
Mood:  hug me
Now Playing: Lindsay Lohan - Rumors
Topic: Down With King Dubya
Informed is right. Fuck this dude. I just can't believe that people actually believe anything coming out of his mouth. I saw a picture on SorryEverybody.com - A man from Germany accepted Kerry supporters' apologies and said, don't feel bad, we made the same mistake 50 years ago.

He was referring to Hitler.

I am sick and tired of hearing Bushniks claim that they are informed of the issues...

I have spent at least two hours A DAY researching the issues, confirming information spouted from various sources, and making sure that I read the other side of the story.

Bush's claims have more holes in them than a block of Swiss cheese.

But then again, I'm sure that they would like to burn the Emancipation Proclamation as well. We agreed that the South has just as much right to fly the Confederate flag still. Big mistake. But who are we to take away their freedom to do as they will???

The American Civil War was the last time that this country was so divided (thanks Bush and your religious WINGNUTS - YOU ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE TERRORISTS WHO TOOK THEIR RELIGION TOO FAR AND JUDGED OUR WAY OF LIFE AND TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO FORCE THEIR IDEALS TO ROCK OUR WAY OF LIFE).

But us "Left Wing Liberal Dipshits" (whathave you) and "Idiot Democrats" are a little above that action. For now. We will work hard and long and try to correct the wrong done by the other 51% of our country. We will volunteer to help those unfortunates who are affected to such a degree that they lose their homes, they lose their limbs, whathaveyou.

We will not abandon the ideals brought to us by those who died during the American Revolution - people like Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence - but I doubt that any of the Bushniks were paying attention to that during school... from Jr. High through College when they taught those values and the reasoning behind that. Here's a refresher course:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Hugs and Kisses to King Dubya and the Bushniks from the New American Revolution.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: OMP's MJK AudioVisuals
Date: Nov 12, 2004 06:03 AM

Read my profile then tell me about video editing again...

Here... READ THIS:

RE: The Draft The Draft The Draft The Draft The Draft The Draft

Body: ok thanks for posting this all i have to saw is... if bush wants this war he can go fight it him self... he skipped out on the one he was supposed to fight in... do people realize that the guy thats sending them/their kids/family/friends/neighbors/etc... to war to die for their country wouldnt even go to war himself... he starts the war and sit safely at home and goes on his vacations while people die for his lost cause... considering he cant remember who or why we are fighting. and the war against terriorisum wouold have been with a bunch of AMERICANS... the guys that flew the planes were AMERICAN citizens... thats one of the reasons he kept it quite for so long... i'm sorry i staying in america just to see how fucked up its gonna be and if worse comes to worse i'll blow myself up, like the suicide bombers did... and u know what at least i'd be away from here... (sorry these are all facts i saw on tv or read in a newspaper, etc. so it could be a little wrong but her i'm 17 and at least i pay attention enough to know whats going on...)

She's fucking 17 and knows more than YOU do!

Give it up... I read ALL the articles coming thru those sites and MORE...

What the fuck do YOU read?

I haven't even SEEN F911 you dipshit... you know why?

Because I KNEW all about everything in it before it even CAME OUT you dumb ass republican SHEEP ROBOT.

So don't tell me how uninformed I am because you're so full of shit it's not only coming out of your ears, nostrils and mouth....

It's even coming out of your eye sockets and pours!

Piss off.. you're another BUSHBOT... Another midwestern DUMBASS who doesn't think for himself but "joins the gang" Yay! Like Special Ed !! Yay!

You like Spageddi ?? yay! Just piss off.. go get laid and kill babies.... Have a good time! Live it up! Cause you are FUCKED in the afterlife for your support of a fucking anti Christ, you demon freak! Ahahahaa

Otherwise... all the best!

Michael J

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: OMP's MJK AudioVisuals
Date: Nov 11, 2004 01:13 PM

Go to this link IF you want to know everything there is to know about "The Return Of The Draft"......

http://www.google.com/custom?q=%22the+draft%22&sa=Search+TO+Archives&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthout.org%3BGL%3A0%3BAH%3Acenter%3BLH%3A45%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthout.org%2Fimgs.site_01%2F1.LGO.search_1.gif%3BLW%3A455%3BAWFID%3A5a9b1b83678b74b7%3B&domains=www.truthout.org&sitesearch=www.truthout.org

Or go to www.truthout.org and google search: "The Draft" for the same results...

Happy Reading! Thanks ASSHOLE republicans! Enjoy sending your children TO DIE for us! I for one have NO SYMPATHY for you if you voted for BUSH... You're fucking DUMB and DERSERVE to lose your children! Good on ya!

Michael J



----------------- Original Message -----------------
From:
Date: Nov 12, 2004 05:27 AM

see this is where you are wrong, this has nothing to do with me trying to fight a battle for her, and you are entirely entitled to your own opinion, which you've clearly made prominent, but at the same time, if you feel as though your points are entirely valid, which "truthout.org" and "howardstern.com" aren't exactly valid sources for that sort of information, then you wouldn't mind discussing it with someone else. and i'm not trying to do research about Bush now, he's the one i wanted to be president, so i'm completely satisfied. you're the only completely oblivious to the fact that you are just like everyone else who claims to know so much about something, when reality is that you don't, you're only furthering the ideas of something other moron who didn't have a clue either. when michael moore is your forefront for a cause, you definitely are striving for tiny threads of reality, his entire movie took every scene out of context, you may not know this, but movies use this little concept of editing. but the point is, you make yourself seem completely retarded since every point you try to make is followed by hysterical laughter, unbased insults, aka "mis-spelling" words, its misspell, and calling people "imbuciles," its imbicile; anyways, you may what to do a little research yourself if you truly want to claim to know so much.

Religious Right's Hostile Take Over Of Our Freedom
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: Kelly Clarkson - Breakaway
Topic: Disturbing Information
Dr. Abele: A Turn to the (Religious) Right
By Dr. Robert Abele
Yubanet

Monday 13 September 2004

If John Kerry has anything going for him that separates him from George W. Bush, it is the fact that he is not involved in the so-called "religious right" of America.

This is the name given by the media to a well-organized band of fanatic biblical fundamentalists who are hell-bent on turning our democracy over to (their concept of) God.

In the highest leadership circles of this movement, there is open talk of the goal of obtaining a theocracy in the U.S. Part of their method in achieving this goal is to attempt to convince Americans,

as they have convinced Mr. Bush,

that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation.

The frightening fact about this movement is not that it is being pushed by an extremist wing of "religious" America,

but that they have in fact to a large degree taken over the Republican Party,

making it and its policies extremist.

When their candidates become our elected officials,

as in fact the current situation stands today,

they have halfway achieved their goal.

An equally frightening and perplexing fact about this movement is that they call themselves "Christian" but will stop at nothing to get their dogmatic ideology adopted as the universal law.

The most bothersome thing about this movement it is that their theocratic end justifies any means necessary to its achievement, including lying and cheating, as we will see below.

This writing aims to make a first contribution to challenging this movement, first by rejecting the revisionist history advocated by this vocal minority to have their form of religious government accepted as the only one allegedly intended by the Founders of this great country.

The focus of the first part of this article, then, will be the attempts of these Christian zealots to have people believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.

Second, the main figures of this movement who serve in Congress,

their positions and their proposed legislative agendas will be highlighted.

The preference of ideology to the pursuit of truth of the people who would make theocratic claims concerning the founding of our constitutional democracy is demonstrated in the method that is their favored one:

find "proof quotes" from the Founders to demonstrate their preconceived position.

This method, however, demonstrates the logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest process of violently ripping quotations out of the context of their use.

For example, let us take two quotations often used in this process.

The first one is from George Washington, the second from Thomas Jefferson.

The Washington quotation frequently used to demonstrate the "religious right" point is this:

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

This quotation is frequently found on fundamentalist Christian web sites, without provision of citation.

I searched forty-eight such sites before I found one that stated that the line allegedly uttered by Washington was from a speech he gave to the Dutch Reformed Synod in 1789.

After extensive research, I was finally able to obtain a copy of this speech.

I found three things in this research:

first, it is not a speech; it is a letter Washington wrote.

Second, it is an obscure letter, not easily found, and not certainly in the usual collections of his works.

Third, it is only three paragraphs in length, and in it Washington never once utters such a line.

In fact, there is nothing even close to this line in his speech, nor in any of the other speeches, letters, or writings of Washington I have read to date.

This is not to argue, of course, that Washington never said such a thing.

It is to argue that it is intellectually dishonest to throw such quotations around when one cannot site the source of it.

Or worse, as in the Christian web site in which I found this speech, to forge the footnote!

The quotation from Jefferson is even more easily dispensed with when one puts it in its context.

The quotation used by fundamentalist Christians is this:

"I am a real Christian."

While Jefferson certainly did pen those words, he was explicitly making reference in that very sentence to the ethics of Jesus, not the overtly religious overtones of the gospel.

Just two sentences earlier in that same letter, he makes a direct reference to his own "version" of the New Testament, in which he cut the ethical sayings of Jesus out of a Bible and placed them on blank pages of a book.

Jefferson saw Jesus as a great ethical philosopher, but certainly did not understand him as in any way divine or even claiming divinity.

On most Christian accounts, this excludes him from the "chosen elect" of "true believers." Thus, Jefferson was claiming that he was "a real Christian," that is, one who follows the ethical teachings of Jesus, rather than those "false Christians" who used their profession of faith in the divinity of Jesus to gain, increase, and consolidate their religious and/or political power.

It takes an incredible twisting and turning of Jefferson's words, as use of this quotation does, to argue for the alleged "Christianity" of this Founder of the country.

At best, this method, then, is superficial; at worst, it is downright dishonest.

Second, this fundamentalist dogma that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" fails to delineate clearly two important issues:

the activity or goal of founding a democratic form of government, and the fact that many of the Founders were believers in a deity.

The textual evidence nowhere indicates that the purpose of their founding such a government was exclusively or even predominantly religious in nature.

Nowhere is the division between these categories more clear than in Thomas Jefferson's intellectual hero, John Locke.

Locke explicitly states in his Two Treatises of Government - and it is clearly echoed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence - that the founding of a democratic commonwealth was for the purpose of ensuring our "lives, liberties, and properties."

Nowhere does Locke say that the purpose of a democratic form of government was religious in nature.

In fact, Locke states quite precisely in his "Letter Concerning Toleration [of religion]" that "the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to...civil concernments," and that the state "neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls."

Moreover, the fact that Jefferson and other Founders appealed to God in their writings does not mean that we are a theocracy!

All one need do is read Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution to make this point abundantly clear.

This Article reads in part as follows:

"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

When fundamentalists attempt to make the Founders out to be Christian and therefore founders of either a religious or a Christian democracy,

they do terrible damage to the fundamental aim of democracies of the eighteenth century:

freedom of the individual.

Even if this happened to be informed by their faith, it is only that:

to be informed is not to be determined by or subservient to their faith.

Their primary concern was with the "natural law" of human reason and individual liberties.

Divine revelation had nothing to do with their political aims.

On the contrary, to a man they clearly believed that rationality was to be the guiding light of democracy, not appeals to the divine.

Let us examine a statement from Thomas Jefferson in this regard:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage to reason, than that of blindfolded fear..." (Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr)

Third, and more to the point, although some of the Founders were Christian, many more were Deists.

There is a fundamental difference between what Deists believe and the doctrines of mainstream Christianity.

Deists maintain that a Divine Creator of the universe exists, but deny that he is personally interested in human history.

Accepting no revelations, no persons as "God incarnate," the Deists reject the divinity of Jesus as well.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were indubitably Deists;

they admitted to such many times in their writings.

For just one of many examples, I will quote the "real" Thomas Jefferson, far more accurately referred to as a Deist than a Christian.

This should demonstrate the misleading nature of any attribution of Christianity to him:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding..."

There are numerous such passages in the writings of Jefferson, if fundamentalist Christians would but just look before attempting to write their revisionist histories.

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the former the author of the Declaration of Independence, the latter the author of the Constitution and the First Amendment to our Constitution protecting religious freedom, were both very alarmed at the possibility that some parties would attempt to foist their single-minded Christian religious beliefs on the majority.

Both of them wrote and lobbied extensively for laws prohibiting this kind of interference from Christians in politics.

For instance, Jefferson wrote in his "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever."

Madison, for his part, maintains in his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," his opposition to a Virginia bill to tax people to pay those who taught the doctrines of Christianity, that "the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy.

The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world; the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."

Even more to the point, says Madison, "A just Government needs [religious clergy] not."

Fifth, the position as stated by those who subscribe to the "Christian nation" dogma fails to make another critical distinction: that between religious belief and Christianity.

There is no doubt that the Founders partook in the former practice; there is considerable doubt that this is the same practice as the latter.

One will read precious few references to Jesus or Christ in most of the writings of the "big name" Founders.

Even where one does find these references, it is not at all in reference to the forming of the new democratic government.

This indicates clearly that the Founders had something else in mind than creating a government based on or imbued with, religion, least of all the Christian version.

Furthermore, assuming that the alleged Christianity of the Founders could be established with certitude, it does nothing at all to "prove" that they therefore wanted to establish a Christian nation.

To reach this conclusion would require a quantum leap in logic.

When all of these issues are considered, one is only left to conclude that the fundamentalist position on this issue is not fundamentally rooted in reason or in history, but rather in a vain desire to proselytize for a distinctively Christian revisionist history.

When any group uses the banner of a political party in order to engage in dogmatic ideological assertions of an allegedly religious nature, that group in effect hijacks the political process only for the purpose of achieving their own narrow ends.

When that happens, it must be challenged by the majority of citizens.

In this case, it is important to challenge the people who espouse such positions, in the name of intellectual honesty, to do more reading and thinking, beyond what their Bible allegedly tells them.

However, we cannot stop our analysis of the "religious right" here, because we must come back to today and examine their current activities.

The "Christian nation" movement that is gaining a very strong foothold in American politics today is not simply the run of the mill version of biblical fundamentalism.

Rather, it is a movement designed specifically to attack the Constitution and the broad view of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (see the writings of religious right writers such as Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, Gary DeMar, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and others for first-hand statements to this effect).

Their goal, at its most extreme, is a biblical theocracy.

Theocracy in their case means that the principles of one single religion, in this case, Christianity and its notion of divinely ordained rule, are to be the governmentally recognized and supported interpretation of jurisprudential decisions and legislative proposals.

The movement that is gaining strength in the right-wing of the Republican Party and thus in the U.S. Senate and House or Representatives, is every bit as ideologically entrenched, and every bit as dangerous to democracy, as fundamentalist Muslims who argue for a Mid-East Islamic theocracy.

Consider the main players who belong to this movement, and who have the ear, as well as the support and confidence of, President Bush:

Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Bob Bennet, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Kyle, George Allen, Antonin Scalia, and others, mentioned below.

These politicians, and one Supreme Court Justice, are all supported by the movement for theocracy, if not financially, at least ideologically.

The connection of all of these people to the radical Christian right has been documented by investigative journalists such as Rob Boston, Kimberly Blaker, and Frederick Clarkson, among others.

Consider further that the Texas Republican Party Platform now reads:

"The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation."

The movement is generally referred to in the media as "the religious right," but their main movers and organizers specifically include Pat Robertson's "700 Club," the Rutherford Institute, and The National Reform Association, among others.

These headliner organizations state their missions forthrightly:

"Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government."

Or, as John Ashcroft has stated it on his swearing in as Attorney General:

"We have no king but Jesus."

The main movers behind this movement include Paul Weyrich, Gary North, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others.

More specifically, this group of radical right Christians, through their well-funded representatives and senators, has sponsored "The Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004."

It was introduced into both Houses of Congress this past February, and includes "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office."

The sponsors of the bill: Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby (Alabama), Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) is in the process of garnering support for a bill he hopes to sponsor next year, entitled "The Ten Commandments Defense Act."

He states that the intent of the bill is to acknowledge that "The Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution."

Rather, the Bible is to be viewed as the last line of interpretation of the Constitution.

Judge Scalia, in an address to the Chicago Divinity School in 2002, said "government...derives its moral authority from God.

It is the minister of God with powers to 'avenge' to 'execute wrath' including even wrath by the sword."

In an article in the magazine First Things, Scalia wrote:

"Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral."

These developments are alarming for many and obvious reasons, but I will limit myself to two of them here.

First of all, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence indicates quite clearly that these ideas are not included in the structure of the government the Founders established.

Second, whenever one party attempts to have their rigid ideology adopted as the exclusive position of a nation, the freedom of citizens so central to democracy dies.

It is important to conclude with a key qualifier here.

Not all people who consider themselves fundamentalist or evangelical Christians are consciously or by necessity supporting the movement toward theocracy.

I am acquainted with many well-meaning fundamentalist Christians who would not have any part of this movement.

However, they need to know what cause they are supporting when they vote for candidates who espouse "religious right" causes such as those we have seen above.

There are many perils to our democracy today, many of them coming from within it:

paperless voting machines,

invasion of countries without pretext,

and single-minded ideologies posing as monolithic truth,

with the supporters galvanized around the notion that no truth exists apart from theirs, and who will go to any length to force that putative truth through the political process.

Eternal vigilance against their eternal hostility is the responsibility of all who truly respect the democratic process.

Such is the case with the "Christian nation" hypothesis:

it does not stand against the weight of history or reason, and must be rejected by all who can think critically.

(For more information on this subject, including the specifics concerning legislative actions mentioned above, there are two journalists who write extensively on it: Frederick Clarkson and Rob Boston. They each have a number of books and articles tracking the "religious right." For more, see the following sources: Frederick Clarkson, Eternal Hostility; Clarkson, What is Christian Reconstructionism?; Kimberly Blaker, ed., The Fundamentals of Extremism; Katherine Yurica, The Yurica Report; Tom Paine.com; Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution; Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom; Rob Boston, Pat Robertson, the Most Dangerous Man in America?; and the web sites for "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" and "People for the American Way.")

(For information written by the main organizers of the religious right today, see: Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn; Christian Gallery.com; Chuck Baldwin, Renew America; R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law; Gary North, Christianity and Civilization; and James Kennedy, Character and Destiny: A Nation in Search of its Soul.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Robert Abele is a professor of philosophy at Illinois Valley Community College, located near Chicago. He has written articles on political philosophy and also on ethics and warfare, and is now in the process of completing a book on ethics and the invasion of Iraq. He also has a new book entitled A User's Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act, published by University Press of America, due out in November. He can be reached by email.