Hypocrits in Action...East Meets West

I wrote about Katherine Harris in yesterday's blog. She is running for the Senate this year. I borrowed a quote from her, from an interview given to a religious periodical. In that same interview, she uttered a phrase that seemed rather odd to me: Salt and Light. I will quote from this interview once again:

"The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Ms Harris was also a speaker at the Reclaiming America for Christ conference held in her home state of Florida. The phrase, "Salt and Light" appears on the homepage of this particular Christian assault group. It seems to be a rallying cry of sorts. I believe that it identifies the participants in this conference, indeed the whole political Christian Army, as being the "Salt of the Earth and the Light of the World".The conference was a training exercise in how to take over the government of America, in God's name of course, and put right the damage done by all previous secular governments.

I may be mistaken, but isn't that the same rational that propelled these chaps to "Reclaim Afghanistan for Allah"?




It seems to me that, while fighting tooth and nail to prevent the rise of theocracy in the Middle East, these Christian activists are fighting to install that very form of government here in the West.

There is a quote that I would like to offer at this point, taken from the book of Matthew. The passage deals specifically with the concept of Hypocrisy .

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?"

The Reclaiming America for Christ movement implies, by their very name, that the founding fathers envisioned a melding of Christianity and Politics, which has somehow been usurped by secular (civil) powers. I would argue with that and I offer one last quote in support of that argument:

"But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceived, and the People of being deceived by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance."

Benjamin Franklin...
quoted in The New England Currant (July 23, 1722).

God's Little Helper Wants Your Vote...While You Still Have One

The Christian Right are still hard at it...attempting to take over, or take back as they would have it, America for Jesus. Their latest headliner is Florida congresswoman Katherine Harris, who was recently interviewed by the Florida Baptist Witness. She was asked about her views on politics and religion, abortion, gay marriages, gay rights, and many other "Christian" issues. She is currently running for the US Senate and is hot on the campaign trail.



She had a lot to say for herself. I will offer this quote from her telling interview.

"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong."

I believe that what she is trying to say, in her own garbled and incoherrent way, is that Christians should run the country in the interests of the rest of us who "...don't know any better". It is mighty friendly of them to offer to sacrifice their time and our money in order to devote themselves to caring for all of us ignorant, hell-bound pagans. Not only is she willing to endure the stresses and burdens of power, she is also a hot, pony-riding babe. What more could the voters ask for? Democracy?

She goes on to declare that the separation of church and state is a lie that we have been told, and that God is the one who really chooses our leaders. This might explain her involvement, both as Florida Secretary of State and George W. Bush's Florida campaign manager, when she contrived to keep thousands of black voters from exercising their rights during the 2000 election. She was helping God choose our leaders.

Theocracy is a very dangerous path to walk. It is not Democracy by any stretch of the imagination. To allow these people of "Faith" to subvert elections and to actively attempt to control government is is to invite a new and insidious form of terror into the very heart of America. They may not dress like Mullahs, but they are cut from the same cloth.

It's Liberation George...But Not As We Know It

Recently Mr. Bush expressed his disappointment that the Iraqi people don't seem to appreciate the sacrifices that America has made on their behalf, nor does he understand how so many Iraqis found their way on to the streets to march in support of Hezbollah. But, as he has also expressed, "...things could be worse."

Today there is a story in the Telegraph, a major British newspaper, about the after-effect of the decision to pull British troops out of a post in Amarah. The post, called Camp Abu Naji, was immediately looted by the local population, helped by the Iraqi troops who were to occupy the base.



The article said: "As news spread through Amarah that the British had gone, locals rushed on to the streets shouting "God is great" and drivers sounded their horns in celebration.

Hundreds gathered around the local offices of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric whose followers had fired 281 mortar rounds and rockets at the camp, to offer their congratulations. A loudspeaker repeatedly broadcast the triumphant message: "This is the first Iraqi city that has kicked out the occupiers."

It would seem that not being able to understand the Iraqis, and disappointment in the Iraqi response to their "liberation", will plague Mr Bush and Mr Blair for some time to come. It is their failure to understand the Iraqis that led them into this blunderous military adventure.

It is time to pull up stakes and let the future of Iraq be determined by the people who live there. The idea that democracy can be forced upon a nation, especially a nation so divided amongst itself that civil war is an almost certainty, is folly in it's grandest sense. Iraq, like the Balkans, is too divided in terms of religion and ethnicity, to remain one nation united in democracy. Democracy is based on compromise, which, given the level of sectarian violence in Iraq, is far from viable in that fragmented country.

Civil war and ethnic cleansing are certain to follow the withdrawal of American and British troops from Iraq. Perhaps, tragically, this is the best thing that could happen. Perhaps, out of the ashes of such a war, a new Iraq will emerge. There might be three new nations where one once stood, or there may be a new and united Iraq forged in the fires of internal conflict, like the USA and England were forged in the fires of their own civil wars. But it is, I believe, up to the Iraqis to determine what their future might be.

Governments have been engineered in the Middle-East before: It was the British and the Americans who installed the Shah in Iran many years ago. But, even with a totalitarian and despotic grip on power, the Shah was doomed from the very beginning. His government was replaced by the current theocracy that Mr Bush is determined to undermine. But what will Mr Bush do with Iran should he depose the Mullahs? Does he expect, as he did in Iraq, that the "liberated" peoples will strew his path with flowers and rejoice at their new found freedom?

My guess is.... He probably does.

It Could Be Worse...And It Probably Will Be

There is an article in the Washington Post today that reflects on a recent news conference held by President Bush during which he had much to say about the war in Iraq. I would like to just quote from the opening few sentences of this article:

"Of all the words that President Bush used at his news conference this week to defend his policies in Iraq, the one that did not pass his lips was "progress."

For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse."

With the almost certainty that civil war is looming in Iraq, and the absolute lack of any intellegent plan to insure American victory there, the administration is looking more and more bewildered and confused. But is anyone really surprised by this turn of events? I, for one, am not.

There are still many people who believed, and still do, that Iraq was behind 9/11, and that they had WMD's ready to let fly at America. Mr Bush and his colleagues went to great pains to sell those beliefs to the American people, even though they were not true, and a great many citizens bought into the lies.

The fabrication of "Intellegence" to promote the war, and the lack of "Intellegence" in the planning and execution of that war, explains, to me, why the president appears to be bewildered and confused at the current state of affairs. Lack of intellegence is something that this White House has plenty of.

Here is a video that will illustrate that proposition. It is somewhat longer than most of my posts, but it is worth viewing.

Elections looming..And the War Goes On..And On

Dubya held a press conference yesterday morning. I won't bore you with the details, but I would like to comment on a couple of points that Mr. Bush made. First of all he warned us all that for the US to pull out of Iraq, or leave before the "mission" was accomplished, would empower terrorism and make us all less secure. I may be mistaken, but I thought that all of those things had already happened.

I remember Mr. Bush, standing beneath a banner that read "Mission Accomplished" proclaiming that combat was over in Iraq. And, if I am not very much mistaken, terrorism has become more empowered since the invasion and the world is most definitely a much more dangerous place since Dubya and Co. set off on their military adventure to export democracy.

Secondly, Mr Bush intimated that, with elections looming, it would be dangerous to vote for anyone questioning or criticizing the administration's foreign or domestic policies. In saying this yesterday morning he was reiterating Mr. Cheney's earlier observations that voting for Democrats would be playing into Al Qaeda's hands. So much for democracy and freedom...and welcome to the next election which, like the last, will center on the war and become a showpiece on the politics of fear.


Mr. Bush once said, during his first election campaign, that he wanted to be a "Uniter". Well he missed his target on that one. Now, according to Bush and Cheney, there are two Americas: One side is composed of those that favour the administration's stance on the war and love freedom, and the other side is, obviously, Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers.

Welcome to the new cold war...Bush/Cheney style.

The Eagle Contemplates...Alternatives

A short while ago I wrote a blog entitled The Eagle Has Landed...Again. This blog mentions that America's attempts to export democracy, especially in central and south America, has usually ended with America supporting dictatorships and juntas rather than establishing democracies. In fact, America has had very little success at establishing democratic governments anywhere in the world. But it has had quite a bit of experience at supporting dictatorships and military juntas.

The reason I am going over material covered so recently is that I read an article this morning, posted by Reuters, that covers some statements made by Mr. Bush concerning the "..fragile democracies" in Lebanon and Iraq. He goes on to assert that ".. security in the United States depends on democracy taking hold in the Middle East."

But there was an even more interesting and noteworthy element to this particular article. There is a small paragraph, almost invisible to the un-cynical eye, that I would like to share with you.

"The New York Times this week quoted an unnamed military- affairs expert who was briefed at the White House last month as saying senior administration officials acknowledged that they are "considering alternatives other than democracy" in Iraq, which the White House denied."

Is this a "Come back Saddam..all is forgiven" switch in American foreign policy? Is there a new and improved Saddam lurking in the shadows? Or does this simply reflect the non-competency of these so-called policy makers? They seem to be coming to the realization that they have bitten off much more than they can chew when it comes to "exporting" democracy.

Like Vietnam, where America spent over a decade supporting an unpopular and despotic government, Iraq has proven to be a much more difficult project than was first imagined during those late night sessions between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others at the PNAC .

Civil War? Renewed Dictatorship? Islamic State? Will there be three Iraqs in the future, Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd?

Stay tuned and see what the future has in store for the Middle-East...and America.

Teaching Religion...But Not Tolerance

Today I am going to post a couple of small films that reflect religious attitudes and expressions. The first of these videos allows some insight into Islamic education, the second allows us some insight into the mind-set of the evangelical Christians and their hypocritical attitudes towards the other "great" religions. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

All Aboard for the Baghdad Morgue

According to an article in the New York Times today there were 3,438 civilians killed in Iraq during the month of July, 2006. More than half of that number were killed in Baghdad. Most of these are the victims of the sectarian violence that the Iraqi government, with increased numbers of American troops in support, have not been able to control, contain, or diminish.

The figures were compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and the Baghdad Morgue. The July figure represents a 9% increase over the figures for June.


So much for "Mission Accomplished".



The same issue of the New York Times carries a report of a meeting that President Bush called of his War cabinet and several outside experts. During this meeting the president expressed the view, "the Shia-led government needs to clearly and publicly express the same appreciation for United States efforts and sacrifices as they do in private."

Mr Bush also expressed disappointment and puzzlement that 10,000 Iraqi Shias had attended a rally and demonstrated in support of Hezbollahah and against the United States. He wants the Iraqi people to "..get more on board to bring success."

But what exactly is "success"? Does Mr Bush see a future Iraq as a beacon of democracy that the whole of the Middle-East will willingly emulate? Does he honestly believe that, through his policies of war and occupation, he is "liberating" the Iraqi people? Does he truly believe that the Iraqi people, who are dying in their thousands, will applaud and be grateful for his intervention?

I think he does. Pity.

As Iraq sinks ever more quickly and surely into civil war, Mr Bush will find that he will become even more frustrated that the Iraqis simply do not wish to "get on board" with him and his War Cabinet.

My advice: Let the people of Iraq work it out amongst themselves. It might be that the religious and ethnic identities, so long repressed under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, should be allowed expression. If this leads to a segmented Iraq, then so be it.

Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan, and many other Muslim nations harbour factions that literally hate America, and by proxy, America's allies. Does Mr Bush believe that his policies in Iraq will change this state of affairs? Is waging war against these entities, directly or indirectly, going to change the world for the better? Will we be safer? I don't think so.

Even among the "allies" that the United States has managed to gather in the Middle-East, is there one true democracy? No.

Pipe dreams and pipe lines...that is the essence of the thing.

Ceasefire in Lebanon: But is it Peace?

I am going to post two videos today. The videos allow some insight into the hearts and minds of suicide bombers, or, as they call themselves, martyrs.

Today there is a cease-fire in the Lebanon. The question is: Will it hold? Is this the first step to a lasting peace, or just another chance to regroup and rearm? Will negotiations succeed this time, or will they once again fail to bring stability and peace to this much troubled nation in this tragic part of the world?

I am sorry to say that I don't believe any cease-fire will hold for long. The troubles that run in this part of the world, run deep and long. The videos here are titled:


"In The Name of God"

The Boyz in the (Brother) Hood

Well it seems that the boys are back in town. Osama, with his network of terrorist cells spread thoughout the world, has added another dimension to his organization: Homegrown terrorist cells.

Over the last eight months the security services of Britain and America, with assistance from Pakistani intelligence, have had a number of British Muslims, mostly young, educated men, under tight surveillance. This group of young men, brought together by their religion and their anger at Western foreign policy, were plotting to destroy a large number of commercial aircraft and huge numbers of innocent people. The plot has been well covered by the world's press, and it will be making headlines for some time to come. The repercussions will be felt around the world in terms of international travel and the increased security measures that will follow.

It would seem that the wars in the Middle-East have inspired a sort of "resistance" movement among young, alienated Muslims. They aspire to be a part of the great movement towards the re-establishment of the Caliphate, and the supremacy of Islam in this world. They see the wars in the Middle-East as a war against Islam, one that has been raging since the Crusades, and they are determined to carry that war forward.

Many disaffected youth in today's world seek purpose and identity. Street gangs flourish in the Americas, north and south, and offer their members a solidarity and comradeship that society at large cannot. The idea of living, and dying, for a cause is one that has long drawn young men to service at arms. Now we in the West are faced with a very serious problem. There are traitors among us, a homegrown insurgency, that have been inspired by the likes of Osama Bin Laden, and they are willing to live among us and hate us all the while.

I believe that the wars in the Middle-East have empowered terrorism. The fact that we are now faced with our own domestic terrorists, inspired and driven towards murderous and insane attacks on innocent people by the seemingly oppressive foreign policies of our governments, speaks to that point.

I have no solution to offer. Perhaps there is none. I believe that the real problem, and perhaps the only real solution, lies within Islam. Violent and dangerous factions, from street gangs to Al Qaida, from the IRA to Hezbollah, exist in a climate of fear. Their promised violence, and their willingness to use it, drive people into a state of fearful silence. Where organizations like this exist, from Belfast to Sao Paulo, from East Los Angeles to Beirut, and from Baghdad to Walthamstow, it is the silence of their communities that empower them. Only by rising against these insidious outfits, organizing protests and educating children, routing out the clerics and other leaders that seduce the young into violence and terror, will there ever be a solution.

Many Muslim community leaders have been interviewed, in Britain and around the world, and they all seem to say the same thing: The radical Islamists do not speak for the majority of Muslims. I would argue with that. I believe, in their actions, words, and clerical aspirations, that the Islamic extremists are indeed speaking for Islam. But this is not because they are right, it is because Islam itself has no real answer to the extremists in its' midst.

The solution lies with Islam. The problem, perhaps, lies with us all.

The Eagle has Landed..Again

In 1898 the United States fought a speedy war with Spain...and won. The Philippino people fought alonside the Americans in that war, believing that they were fighting for their own independance from Spanish colonial power. This turned out not to be the case. The United States, rather than "liberating" the Philippinos, simply exchanged ownership of those islands. The United States paid Spain twenty million dollars, under the treaty of Paris, and the Philippino people had new masters and America had a colony.

Mark Twain, the great writer, commentator, humanitarian, and wit was proud of his country in aiding the Philippinos in the struggle for independance. He wrote a friend in 1898 saying, " It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom. It is another sight finer to fight for another man's. And I think this is the first time it has been done."

Later, in 1900, having read carefully the treaty of Paris, he came to a very different conclusion. "..We did not intend to free but to subjugate the people of the Philippines...And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons in any other land."

The United States has not faired well over the years as a colonial master. In attempting to spread the gospel of democracy throughout the American continents, it settled instead for simply promoting any government that would comply with American "ideals" of ownership and free trade. Both Central and South America were populated by dictatorships and Juntas that were compliant with America's economic supremacy in that hemisphere, and, whenever this was challenged by uprising or dictatorial whim, the USA was quick to effect an "intervention". Few countries in that hemisphere escaped the military might of the United States over the last two centuries.

Today America is once again embarked upon a quest to "export democracy" to a troubled and un-enlightened world. But, with no real track record of ever having accomplished such a deed, how do they suppose to make it happen? Or is this just another blundering attempt, covered in flowery rhetoric and slogans designed to pump the blood and fire the heart, that will devolve into America simply accepting any government, whatever its composition and form, that will comply with its' "ideals" ?

If the goal of the present administration is to make the world safer for democracy and to defeat terrorism, then it is doomed to failure. Indeed, it has already failed. Support for the instruments of terror, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, has increased many times over since this ill-fated military adventure began. Distrust and disillusionment with the policies of the United States has increased at the same rate amongst Americas allies as well as in the hearts and minds of those very people that America set out to "liberate".

I, for one, question the motives, means, and objectives of this present administration. I believe that today's conflicts were not initiated in order to "export democracy", but to insure and secure America's supremacy in the modern world. Today's wars are the manipulations of single-minded men who want to cement a new world order. The following video, I think, illuminates their intentions. What do you think?





And the wars go on..and on..and on

Civil War: The worst is yet to come

Today the papers are carrying some very interesting stories. In the UK there has been a memo leaked to the BBC that was written by the out-going British Ambassador to Iraq and intended for Tony Blair. This memo relays the ambassador's opinion that Iraq is slipping into a state of civil war. He expects the country to divide along ethnic and religious lines and that civil war will ensue. He states that Iraq will be a serious problem for the West for the next decade or so. But his is not the only opinion along these lines.

An article in the Washington Post today reports that two of Americas top generals both told the Senate Armed Services Committee that civil war looms in Iraq.

"The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it," Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

The second general, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had this to say: "We do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact . . . We need the Iraqi people to seize this moment."

Pardon me, but it seems that the Iraqi people have long ago seized the moment. The invasion of Iraq was planned by people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush with the vision that the invasion would be met by the Iraqi people in the same way that the French welcomed the "liberation" of Paris. This was not to be so. The people of Iraq, many of whom were violently oppressed and suppressed by Saddam, soon seized their moment. The religious and ethnic groups quickly gathered together to comprise militias and insurgencies, and the only thing that unites them is a complete and utter distrust and hatred of the occupying forces.

The dream that a free, open, and united Iraqi democracy will somehow rise from the ashes of Saddam's tyranny is just that...a dream. But it is not a dream that the majority of the Iraqi people share.

If there is civil war...then upon whose side will the West find themselves? The Shia faction, supported by the Iranians and deeply supportive themselves of entities such as Hezbollah and Hamas, would make strange bedfellows indeed for the USA and Britain. The Sunni faction, mostly supporters of the ousted Saddam and the side most antagonistic in the current conflict, would also be an odd choice. The Kurds will draw their territorial borders and defend them against all comers.

But where will that leave the West...or will the West just leave? Where will that leave Israel?

The Israelis, who find themselves surrounded on all sides by ever more powerful and threatening nations such as a soon-to-be nuclear Iran, will have to face the fact that one day the USA and the other Western nations will just pack their tents and leave the desert. When that time comes then the real war will begin. Israel, who long ago achieved nuclear capability, will have little choice but to strike out with all it's strength to neutralize it's enemies. The West, will grow tired of sending in "Peacekeeper" troups to the troubled regions of Palestine, Lebanon, and Israel. Syria, with a Shia Iran and a Shia Iraq, both of whom will become theocracies built on the premise of martyrdom, will find itself ever more willing to follow the Iranian lead. Hezbollah, another Shia group, will gain more and more power and influence over the Labanon government and people, and Israel will be cornered as never before.

Donald Rumsfeld, whose feet rarely seem to touch ground, insists that to even discuss such things as pulling out troops and civil wars is to help our deadly enemies. He insists that if we don't stay in Iraq, and all the other little wars he has promoted, then we will one day have to fight Islamic fundamentalism on our own ground, begining with the Phillipines and Spain. This is, of course, a neoconservative spin on the old "Domino Theory" that haunted and promoted the cold war with communism.

There will be troubled days ahead.

And the war goes on..and on...and on

Politics + Religion= hypocrisy

Politicians are a funny lot. They will say and do anything in order to win votes and gain power. They will seize upon every opportunity to rouse the rabble and occupy every moral highground available. They spew platitudes, cliches, and promises aplenty in order to seduce the voters into believing that they, and only they, will look after society's best interests. And, of course, they must convince the voters that God is on their side.

Here is a politician, a congressman from Georgia, who has sponsored a bill to display the Ten Commandments in the Congress. Of course this is entirely illegal due to the separation of Church and State as outlined in the Constitution. But just how deep is the congressman's belief in the Ten Commandments? Or is this just a cynical and hypocritical way to gain air time and votes...or perhaps lay the groundwork for a future presidential campaign?

Take a look and decide for yourself:

Armageddon Here We Come!

As many "born again" Christians believe in the end days , the final battle between the forces of good and evil and the second coming of the Christ, the present conflicts in the Middle East must invoke feelings of anticipation for both the coming "Rapture" and the end of evil in the world.

I would like to point out that the final battle, according to the book of Revelations, is to held at a place called Armageddon , not too far from Jerusalem.

The West, led by George Bush, a born-again, last-days Christian, is face to face with the Imams and radical clerics of Islam. In the middle, but by no means an innocent bystander in the game, is Israel. Israel, feeling surrounded by enemies thirsty for it's blood and hungry for it's flesh (no pun on Christianity intended), represents the only Jewish hope for a re-gained homeland that was destroyed and taken from them by the Romans in the first century...who staged the destruction of Jerusalem from the fields of Armageddon.

I have written of the possible unification of the Islamic factions in the face of a common enemy. This has proven to be not only possible...but very probable. The video that I am enclosing in today's blog will illustrate how the Hizbollah leadership is calling upon all Islam to unite behind them in their battle or face an eternity of shame and perhaps even sacrifice their place in the next life.

Anyone who believes that Religion, any denomination, is somehow elevated above the troubles of this world, is simply being foolish. Religion is at the heart of the troubles of this world, and consoles us all with stories and tales of the paradise it promises in the "next" world.

And here is a fine example: