Not all Christians are Religious

Welcome to Mobiforumz.com. then start blogging ur own wap site!

Free Mp3’s 4 Ur Mobile

Free Full Games 4 Ur Mobile

Free Mobile Applications

Free RingTones 4 mobiles

My husband sent me a link to an article in PC USA magazine by Charles March entitled “What it means to be a Christian after George W. Bush.” You can link to the article below. You may have noticed I haven’t been writing my own stuff on my blog lately. That is because people like this can write what I’m thinking so much better than I can. Finally Christians in America are coming to their senses and realizing that they are Christian first and Americans second. Finally Christians in America are realizing that following the teaching of Jesus should trump party loyalty and national pride. Finally Christians in America are speaking up and taking back their faith from those who have twisted it into something violent and vengeful and sick.

The following is one paragraph in this remarkable article. It highlights that Christians frequently have become misguided in history. Christians have used the Bible to support ideas and beliefs that are actually not supported by the true meaning of the Bible.

March wrote:
“I came of age in the American South in the 1960s, and the moral values shared by most families in the churches of my childhood were deeply interwoven with our culture’s hold on white supremacy. The vigilant and quite often neurotic defense we made of the Southern Way of Life blinded us not only to the sufferings of African-Americans — the victims of our collective self-righteousness — but also to our spiritual arrogance and group pride. We believed that our conception of Christianity and our cherished family values were the most wholesome and pure the world had ever known. Inside this serene delusion, we presumed ourselves to be paragons of virtue, although we rarely lifted a finger to help anyone but our own.”

How insightful! This is the perfect example of how our own beliefs and values can be supported by verses in the Bible and by the church when infact they are contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. When we overlook the true meaning of the Bible and simply try to support our own agenda and belief system we will certainly find evidence to back it up but we will lose the true meaning of the word in the long run. Christians have advocated this war for 6 years now stating that we are spiritually better than them. Christians have believed that we are better because we have democracy or we have Jesus or we have values or we have “freedom” and therefore we have virtue. In reality we have no virtue when we worship our country and our flag and our President and ignore our God and His words to us. It truely is the great delusion of our time. Read more by following the link below!

http://www.pres-outlook.com/tabid/2282/Article/7231/Default.aspx

Finally the press has put all of the information about how the United States ended up in a war with Iraq into one news story. The lies and misinformation have always been out there individually but no one has ever been able to put them together so that people can really grasp the breadth of the deception that was perpetrated upon the American people. Apparently it took the foreign press, Canada, to put it all together for us. The American press, although they have apologized for helping to spread the lies that led up to the war, continue to be too afraid of the administration to compile all of the information and let their viewers watch it. It is no wonder that the world is baffled by our complacency.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/video.html

This is officially the scariest quote I’ve ever read. This man wants to be the next President of the United States.

“I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards, rather than try to change God’s standards.”

Mike Huckabee, January 14, in Warren Michigan

Is the American psyche really so fragile? Do we take on views and beliefs based on a bumper sticker type sound bite that have been repeated millions of times by our government and its’ propaganda machine? “Fight’m over there so we don’t fight’m over here” is one such sound bite that has penetrated the American psyche and become truth to millions of Americans. This sound bite, however, has no basis in reality and does not even make sense on multiple levels. It doesn’t stop millions of Americans from repeating it ad nauseam as a reason to continue a war seemingly forever. “Fight’m over there” has become the mantra of conservatives all over the United States.

First I must point out that 9/11 happened not because of terrorists “over there” but because of terrorists already here. There were people being trained by United States citizens to fly planes. Yes, they may have been acting on orders from people “over there” but taking over any number of countries would not have stopped this act. There was no single country that was responsible for this attack. 9/11 was planned by a few individuals and carried out by a handful more. Most of these individuals were from Saudi Arabia.

Sometimes the government and the media like to pretend that they have no idea why the terrorists attacked us. In fact, these individuals carried out this attack because of our policies and interference with Iraq, Afghanistan, and other middle eastern nations. We know this because they told us. We helped them drive Russia from Afghanistan and then we ignored them while the Taliban took over. We attacked Iraq and drove them out of Kuwait and then we left them with permanent basis in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We have left troops in their countries and they don’t like it. Fighting “over there” actually caused the attack over here.

Our recent efforts to fight over there have destabilized the entire region much more than had we left it alone. Everyone in this country supported the invasion of Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden. Everyone in this country supported the U.S. troops’ use of force to oust the Taliban government in Afghanistan. President Bush, however, pulled our forces out of this country in the middle of the operation in order to begin another war. The direct cause of this decision was the destabilization of Afghanistan and the escape of Osama bin Laden. Our brave and heroic military had Osama bin Laden on the run and hiding. All they had to do was go find him. Rather than finish the job Bush ordered that they let local groups capture him so that Bush could pull the troops out and send them to Iraq. This resulted in Osama bin Laden paying off the locals so that he could escape. Now, if Bush was really out to get the 9/11 terrorists “smoke’m out, dead or alive, head on a silver platter” then why would he allow bin Laden to escape? By leaving Afghanistan prematurely it allowed the Taliban to come back in and retake much of the region. Right after 9/11 the conservatives were suddenly so concerned with women’s rights in Afghanistan and the horrendous living conditions imposed by the Taliban for women in the region. Then they left those women to suffer the same fate at the hands of the same group so that they could go fight in Iraq. The irony is that the U.S. did the exact same thing after we helped free Afghanistan from Russia and this is why Osama bin Laden first started to hate us. The United States trained bin Laden to fight the Russians and we promised him support. When the Russians left we did not support the new government and this allowed the Taliban to take control and made Osama bin Laden our enemy. This is not ancient history. Why did we not learn from it?

We have also destabilized Pakistan because of our meddling. The Pakistani President supported the U.S. and let the U.S. use his country to attack Afghanistan. This left him vulnerable to extremists who are anti-American and paint him as a collaborator with the United States and the west. As our reputation as an inhumane conqueror of middle eastern countries grows the Pakistani President’s enemies gain ground politically. Destabilization in this country is extremely dangerous because they have nuclear capability. If terrorists or even an unfriendly elected government takes over Pakistan the region could be in BIG trouble. It would be our fault.

Then there is the entire Arabian Peninsula. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Some people, who aren’t paying attention, still believe that they were somehow involved even though Bush and Cheney both have said clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It is another example of saying something enough that it becomes true in the minds of citizens. The media and the conservatives have linked Iraq and 9/11 in sentences so many times that people are confused. It is obvious that this was intentional. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He did terrible things to the people of Iraq. Everyone agrees that this is a fact. The problem is that there are many evil leaders in the world. At what point does another country need to step in and stop this evil from taking place? International law says that we cannot invade another country unless they are a threat to us. The Downing Street minutes made it quite clear that we did not have any evidence that Iraq could in any way be a threat to the United States. The Iraq inspectors said that Iraq was not a danger to the United States. To solve the problem the United States deliberately fabricated evidence to make it seem like we had evidence that Iraq was a threat to us so that we could invade. There is a mountain of evidence that the United States deliberately deceived the people of the world into believing that Iraq was a threat when in fact it was not a threat to anyone.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with saving the Kurds. Saddam did attack the Kurds with a terrible nerve gas but this was before the first Gulf War. My husband and others fought in this war so that Saddam would no longer have the power to do such a thing. It worked. He was no longer a threat to his neighbors and did not posses any weapons of mass destruction that he could use against his own people, his neighbors or especially not us. Saddam also was an enemy to the Taliban, Al Queda and Osama bin Laden. Any one in Al Queda would have been in grave danger in Iraq. Had we played our cards differently Saddam would have probably helped us round up any Al Queda members in Iraq … if there were any. Evidence shows that there were not any because Saddam was careful not to let anyone like that in his country live. Again, not necessarily a positive trait however it ruins any argument that we were going after the terrorists who caused 9/11 when we attacked Iraq.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with protecting the Iraqis from torture. I think we proved this when we started torturing them even using some of the same techniques that Saddam used. If you are going to claim moral superiority as a reason to take over a country then you have to maintain moral superiority during the fight. We have not.

Another argument about Iraq that I have heard a lot from conservatives is that Saddam was thinking about making weapons of mass destruction. International law does not really allow you to bomb or take over a country because of what they might be thinking about doing sometime in the future. They created this law so that countries could not invade other countries claiming that there might be a threat at some time. If all countries ignored the law as we have then everyone could invade whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without consequence. When Pakistan developed their nuclear weapons program we stopped China and India from wiping them off the planet by using the argument that you can’t bomb a country just because they may be a threat sometime in the future. Actually, Hitler used the argument that he could invade Poland because he thought they might be a threat sometime in the future. Hitler also had his own army fake attacks against Germany and blame Poland in an attempt to show a reason to attack Poland. Look how that worked out. Maybe these international laws were created for a reason!

The destabilization in Iraq was the biggest miscalculation and mistake (if it was a mistake) in military history. The country of Iraq was glued together with gum and twine, which was only held together by Saddam. As evil as he was, he was the only thing that held together the Sunnis the Shiites and the Kurds in relative peace and tranquility. These three groups shared neighborhoods, shopped at the same markets and worked together peacefully under Saddam. Christians and Jews, although in the minority, were also a part of these communities. Iraq was not an ideal situation, however the sectarian violence that we see today was not present. Even after the start of the Iraq War the sectarian violence did not exist until the U.S. started it. I saw an entire PBS special about this very topic. Top military and diplomatic leaders from the United States made serious mistakes after the invasion that resulted in the current sectarian violence. Those responsible admit this freely. Why does the mainstream American public not recognize this? Also, by starting this war in Iraq we have let Al Queda come into a country where they could not exist before. They continue to be a very small part of the problem in Iraq, however before we opened the door for them they were not a part of the equation at all.

Iran was the next country who was changed by our involvement in the region. Iran has an extremely young population (mostly because of the war with Iraq years ago). This population of young people is one of the most progressive populations in all of the middle east. They overwhelmingly like and approve of the United States and western culture and have many more individual rights and freedoms than their middle eastern counterparts. Although they elected their current prime minister, Ahmadinejad, public opinion was against him. He had been trying to take away some of the freedoms that the younger generation had come to enjoy and they were ready to get rid of him. Not only that but one must remember that he actually has very little control over foreign policy in Iraq. He is the figure head of the government. He is not the one in control. According to the constitution, the supreme leader of Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has the last say in internal and foreign policies including the commandment of the armed forces and the declaration of war.

Public opinion was so negative toward Ahmadinejad that many people expected that he would not continue to be Prime Minister much longer. Unfortunately, the United States has succeeded in changing much of this public opinion and has instead helped Ahmadinejad remain Prime Minister. First Bush identified Iran as the “Axis of Evil.” This served to scare the Iranians into believing that Bush may just start attacking them for no reason just as he had done to Iraq. Then, when Ahmadinejad started to stand up for Iran and faced off with Bush this helped him gain popularity with Iranians who had been ready to get rid of him. Nothing helps secure your popularity like standing up to a bully in support of your country. It makes no difference that the man is crazy and a loose cannon. To the Iranians, he is willing to protect them and stand up against the United States which is necessary now that the United States is ignoring international law and randomly attacking other countries.

Now, if you were a country that had been identified as belonging to the “Axis of Evil” along with Iraq and North Korea what would you do? Iraq could do nothing because they had been sanctioned for 15 years so they were invaded and taken over. First Jimmy Carter and then Madeline Albright had negotiated with North Korea to keep them from developing a nuclear program. North Korea had been cooperating for years (although they occasionally flexed their muscles and had to be “dealt with”). North Korea decided to stop cooperating with those agreements the day after the axis of evil speech. They turned off the agreed upon cameras and started their nuclear program back up again. Bush ignored North Korea because he was distracted by Iraq and because he refuses to speak to North Korea and now North Korea has a nuclear program. Now Bush would not dream of invading North Korea.

The Iranians were left with little choice but to start talking about nuclear technology. Bush refused to speak to Iran diplomatically and instead continued to call them names and attempt to provoke them. Bush has placed huge war ships in the Persian Gulf in an obvious attempt to provoke Iran and even forced a false flag episode between Iran and Britain. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad has not been easily provoked. He returned the British seamen after the false flag event and put all nuclear interests on hold after diplomatic talks with several countries (NOT the United States) in 2003. Bush was informed by all 16 intelligence agencies in August (or even before) that Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003 because of diplomatic pressure by other countries. Bush, however, continued his bomb Iran, axis of evil rhetoric until November when the NIE became public. Joe Biden said it best when he stated that Bush was either lying or incompetent and asked Bush to pick which. Bush has known for many months, if not years that Iran was no threat to us and had no nuclear program yet he continued to try to mislead Americans into believing that we were about to go to war with Iran. Had the NIE not been made public by the intelligence agencies Bush may have even started World War III with the blessing of many Americans who did not know the truth. When Ahmadinejad begins to look like a reasonable man seeking peace and stability compared to your own leader you must begin to wonder what we, as Americans, are doing.
The entire situation becomes even more muddled when you consider the role of CIA agent Valerie Plame in the mix of events. Most people have assumed that Valerie Plame was revealed as a CIA agent and her career ruined as retribution for her husband, Joe Wilson’s, revelation that a sentence in the President’s state of the union address was false. Wilson had been sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium from this country. Joe Wilson found no such evidence and reported this to the President. The President, however, included the claim that Iraq had yellow cake uranium from Niger in his state of the union address. Joe Wilson publicly announced that this was not true. His wife’s cover was then blown by the administration including Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Although the right wing propaganda machine insists Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, the CIA, congressional hearings and other public records show that she was, indeed, a covert agent working on nuclear proliferation cases. She was traveling around the world as a covert agent attempting to keep the United States safe by reporting on nuclear activity in other countries including Iran. This brings a new question to mind. Was Valerie Plame’s identity revealed in order to ruin the CIA’s ability to monitor nuclear activity in the middle east and especially in Iran. By outing Valerie Plame the Bush administration not only ruined her long career but also endangered her contacts and put in jeopardy the entire web of contacts and informants of the CIA. This most certainly hindered their ability to accurately inform the President of nuclear proliferation for several years while they re-built their informant list and undercover web. That entire ordeal may have been an attempt to begin another war based on false intelligence and fear.

Iran is intimately connected to our invasion of Iraq in another even more important way. Iraq was formerly controlled by the Sunni sect. Although the sects were able to live together under Saddam it was the Sunni people that were the leading class while the Shiites had little power. Iran is a Shiite nation. When the United States invaded Iraq and created a new government the United States backed the Shiite people to run the country. They tried to set up a democracy where all people could have a say in the government but it was the Shiites that would have controlled the government if everything had gone the way the United States had planned. It does not take a genius to figure out how this fact may influence the future of that region. Iran would love to have Iraq led by Shiites. That would be their dream come true. The conservative talking heads keep complaining about Iran giving weapons to Iraqis. They would only be giving them to the Shiite’s who were originally on our side. We should have seen that one coming and should expect nothing less. The Saudi’s, on the other hand, are supplying more weapons and people than any foreign non-allied nation in the entire war. Saudi Arabia backs the Sunnis who were the original group fighting AGAINST the United States. The Sunnis are the ones who did not participate in the original elections and fought our troops. Why didn’t we hear the administration and the conservative talking heads complaining about Saudi Arabia’s involvement? Bush never mentions Saudi Arabia’s involvement and the fact that they are fighting against us in Iraq because he is friends with the royal family and needs to remain their friend for their oil.

Bush has also destabilized Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. The last thing Clinton did before leaving office was to have peace talks and work out an agreement with Israel and Palestine. I’ve seen him speak extensively about his decision to make this a priority in the last months of his Presidency and his struggle to bring peace to that region. Everyone, of course, understands that peace is tenuous at best in that region and that these peace talks were but a first step. Bush, however, has not continued this effort. He has deliberately avoided any peace talks with any country in the past 7 years. He pushed for elections in Lebanon even though several other countries cautioned him that it was too soon. Other leaders understood that elections in Lebanon would mean Hezbollah would win. Bush ignored them and Hezbollah and another anti-Syrian group won most of the seats in Parliament. This election then led to the war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006. After the war began the United States refused to force peace talks between the nations and allowed the fighting to continue until the U.N. finally put a stop to the violence.

Another factor in that war was Iran. Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran all felt much more comfortable that they could “get away with” violence in the region with the United States bogged down in a quagmire of violence in Iraq. Lebanon’s newly formed government was overwhelmingly Shiite and supported by Iran. The government was also anti Syria. With the United States preoccupied and without their usual moral authority (it is hard to tell people not to fight each other when you have invaded a sovereign nation without cause or provocation) it was the perfect time for Lebanon to provoke Israel. After the short war, southern Lebanon was left destroyed. The United States offered money to the government to rebuild but Iran gave cash to each person whose home was destroyed by the war. Iran sent contractors and equipment and started the rebuilding efforts the next day. Ahmadinejad may be an extremist with some crazy ideas but he knows how to turn popular opinion.

Attacking Iran at this point would be the final nail in the complete annihilation of a stabile middle east. The United States does not have the military force to sustain an attack against Iran. Right now we could still undo some of the damage and preserve the support of the Iranian people. They like the west and western ideas. If we bomb them we have lost it forever. We would also gain nothing by bombing Iran. Ahmadinejad would become more powerful. Syria, Lebanon and even their arch enemy Iraq would support them instead of us. China would even be angry with us and they hold all of our war debt and have the capability of crashing our entire economic system. It is time for diplomacy with Iran and it is time to stop the threats of more war that we can not possibly sustain. Iran has a much stronger army than we do at this point. We would have to reinstitute the draft to sustain a war with Iran. All of this to stop a country from gaining nuclear capabilities in possibly 10 years that they could never ever hope to use. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. Iran will never be stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon toward Israel. They would be just like Pakistan is now. They would have a nuclear weapon that they could never use. It would simply be insurance that no one would mess with them. More nuclear weapons is certainly not the best idea. The more there are the more chance there is that some terrorist will have access to one. Now, however, is the time for diplomacy to stop the further development of these weapons. Threats of war will only encourage countries to develop them to protect themselves.

Finally, and most important to our safety AT HOME, all of our policies in the middle east have increased terrorism around the world. If our goal was really to fight terrorism we have done a terrible job of achieving our goal. The United States has helped Al Queda in ways that they could have never previously dreamed possible. On 9/11 we had the sympathy of every nation in the world. Even our enemies offered to help us and were willing to give us the perpetrators. The United States has turned many of those countries against us. By invading a sovereign nation with no means to defend itself we did not look heroic and strong but like a bully picking on a child. By lying and ignoring international laws we have become hated and maligned. By stooping to the level of the terrorists and torturing people, we have helped fuel an insurgence and a groundswell of support for Al Queda. Al Queda makes 100 times the amount of money they used to make and that money is coming from Iraq. Most of the money supporting Al Queda is coming from United States tax dollars in Iraq says a recent national security document. Contractors pay off Iraqis who then fund Al Queda. There could have been no better recruiting tool for Al Queda than to start another war in the middle east. Bush has given Osama bin Laden another gift. The gift of another generation of extremists who hate the United States more than the first and who are willing to die for that hate. Osama bin Laden is still alive to gloat because we let him go. Americans are much less safe because of our policies abroad and everyone in the world knows it but us.

There are things that would make us safer at home. Increasing border security would make us safer. Inspecting all cargo entering the United States would make us safer. Developing a better system for identifying foreign citizens who have stayed longer than their visa permitted our who have come to America on a student visa but have never attended a class would make us safer. There are hundred of ways to make our country safer here at home. The 9/11 commission had many suggestions that the administration has completely ignored. Bush is convinced the only way to fight terrorism is to ignore the problems at home and invade countries abroad. This has only made us more vulnerable. Fighting them over there does not mean they will not come over here. It only gives them more reason to come over here. We need to stop listening to this nonsensical rhetoric and adopt the suggestions of the 9/11 commission. Now that democrats control congress they have started this very process but they need a veto proof majority to do it. Bush would rather veto bills that adopt 9/11 commission recommendations than admit that he should have done them 5 years ago.

Another thing that would make us safer at home would be to have our troops home. They would be here to help us during natural disasters such as Katrina. They would be here to help patrol our borders and inspect cargo. They would be here to defend us during an attack. They would be stronger if they were well rested and trained properly. They would be ready to defend us abroad if needed. They would be stronger if they could buy the proper vehicles and armor and build up their forces. We would be safer at home if we had a strong military that was ready to defend against a real enemy.

Finally, the best way to defend America is to stick to the ideals that made us a great nation. Our nation condemned the use of torture during World War II. We should not use it now. When asked whether water boarding is torture Rudi Giuliani replied that it depends on who is doing it. This is exactly the attitude that any torturer takes. Every country could justify what they do because they have a “good reason.” Water boarding was wrong during the Spanish inquisition, it was wrong when Japan did it to our soldiers and it continues to be wrong even if we have a really good reason. We hung the Japanese torturers who used this technique on our soldiers. If we do not want other people to torture our soldiers then we must refrain from torturing. It is the best way to help protect our soldiers and our citizens and it is the best way to protect the law.

We also have laws against domestic spying. If law enforcement officials suspect terrorist activity they can get a warrant to listen to phone calls before they listen or even within 3 days after they do. The FISA court was specifically designed for this purpose and has worked for years. Bush argues that getting a warrant is not “fast enough” but this makes no sense considering warrants can be obtained retroactively. The only reason to skip getting a warrant would be if you were spying on someone that the court would not approve such as a political opponent, a peace activist or other citizen who opposes you politically. This is in violation of our civil liberties as Americans and should not be tolerated. Republicans who deny that this is a big deal would certainly feel differently if Bill Clinton had done the same. This is exactly why we have laws. So that some things are wrong regardless of who does it or why they do it. If laws did not apply to everyone then people would take the law into their own hands all the time. If someone abused your daughter would you be allowed to go kill him or torture him? That would be a good reason to kill or torture someone yet it is still against the law. If you think your neighbor took your favorite hammer should you be allowed to break into his house to look for it? That would be illegal because you need more than just a good reason.

Americans need to pay attention and pay attention now. Fight’m over there is a bumper sticker and a lie. Fight’m over there is nothing more than the U.S. poking a hornets nest with a big stick. It is not working and it will not work. It makes the U.S. weaker by taking away our allies, our moral authority, our military strength, our peace keeping capabilities and our civil rights. Fight’m over there is a myth that needs to be busted just as the myth of Iran’s nuclear weapons was busted. The U.S. intelligence agencies knew that if they did not come out with the truth their leader would start a war. It is time for us, as Americans, to stand up and say “No more lies.” Americans need to stop believing the myth and instead seek the truth before the most beloved and strongest nation in the world becomes the most hated and weakest nation.

I received this by e-mail from a good friend. I am so glad that someone took the time to write this all down in understandable form so that people can see what the true cost of war is.

As of Sept 16 2007
3,777 US Soldiers Killed, 27,848 Seriously Wounded
For your quick reading, I’ve listed key statistics about the Iraq War, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of September 12, 2007, except as indicated.
US SPENDING IN IRAQ
Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers’ funds. President Bush is expected to request another $200 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.
U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion, in 2007
U.S. Daily Spending in Iraq - over $200 million, in 2007
Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers’ money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.
Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem “questionable or supportable” - $3.2 billion
Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times)
TROOPS IN IRAQ
Iraqi Troops Trained and Able to Function Independent of U.S. Forces - 6,000 as of May 2007 (per NBC’s “Meet the Press” on May 20, 2007)
Troops in Iraq - Total 179,685, including 168,000 from the US, 5,500 from the UK, 1,200 from South Korea and 4,985 from all other nations
US Troop Casualities - 3,777 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 80% active duty, 12% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 18% killed by non-hostile causes. 51% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 70% were from the US Army
Non-US Troop Casualties - Total 298, with 169 from the UK
US Troops Wounded - 27,848, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)
US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home
US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 68 total, at least 36 by enemy fire
IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQ
Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, per The Nation/LA Times.
Journalists killed - 112, 74 by murder and 38 by acts of war
Journalists killed by US Forces - 14
Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 7,442
Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.
Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000
Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 539
Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 305, including 54 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 94 status unknown.
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14
Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70
Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000
QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS
Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,135,000
Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 1.3 million to 1.75 million
Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect
Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%
Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%
Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000
Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000
Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007)
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007
Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007
Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24
Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%
Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%
RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)
Iraqis “strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%
Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%
Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation - 67%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%

For those of you who have been reading my blog you know that I used to be a republican. I was raised as a republican. In high school I rode a chartered jet to Washington, D.C. with my father, Rep. John Kasaich and a several other of his supporters for a weekend of meeting high profile political figures, fancy dinners and tourist activities as a gift for our support. I met Elizabeth Dole, then secretary of transportation, and many other cabinet members of the Reagan administration. I dined at the Turkish embassy and had chocolate covered strawberries at a reception with John Kasaich where I spoke to him about how well he conducted my high school band at the football game that year. I tell you this not to brag but to put my blog in perspective.

I joke that it was not me who left the republican party, it was them who left me behind. This is only half true. Having graduated from Hiram College with a degree in elementary education and psychology and then with a Master’s degree in psychology it was difficult for me to support a party with such poor ideas about education and health care and mental health. As a practicing clinical therapist I really had a hard time with the republican treatment of the poor, the mentally ill and women (especially singe mothers). I continued to support the party, however, maybe out of respect for my father or perhaps out of indifference. Partly because throughout my life I had heard such negative things about democrats from my father that I simply trusted his opinion. I remember being particularly upset during the Reagan years about the deficit. Maybe I was so upset because my dad is a CPA. Ironically he didn’t seem to have a problem with the deficit, that I remember anyway. I also have always been very concerned about the environment and endangered species which is also at odds with the republican party. So you see it was not all their fault that I left. Partly it was because they never really represented my interests and concerns in the first place.

Bill Clinton played a part as well. I voted against him in the first election and was one of those college students “moving to Canada” if he won. Several years later I had changed my mind. Bill Clinton did amazing things for this country and I believed in Clinton even as I voted the entire republican ticket like a good republican (except Clinton’s second election when I voted for him). I opened my mind, saw what the man did for the economy, for mental health, for the poor and I liked what I saw. He balanced budgets and reduced the deficit which was a huge load off my mind (I really did worry about it a lot). It was something the republican’s had said could not be done. I loved what he attempted to do with health care and was heart broken along with him when he failed. When he spoke I listened and did not get distracted or bored. I remember listening to his state of the union address in 1998 as my 4 month old daughter swung in her baby swing and we both stared at the TV during the entire speech. I could go on and on but I must say that Bill Clinton made me an independent. I no longer blindly followed wherever the republican party wanted me to go. I started to pay attention, to think and to vote my beliefs.

Then the republican party used my religion to get votes. They used Christianity to justify war and they perverted it’s basic tenets to support their radical ideology. When I recognized that they were using Christians to advance their non-Christian agenda I stopped being a republican and I became angry. I became angry at the hypocrisy of using Christianity to win elections and then subverting it at every turn. I could see that they formed the faith based initiative to get votes and then completely ignored it after the election. I could see that tax breaks for companies moving jobs oversees hurt the least among us in our nation. I could see the administration supporting coal companies who made money by ignoring safety regulations and EPA mandates. I could see the administration nominating party hacks to top level positions in the EPA, FDA and other regulatory agencies in order to make these agencies disfunctional and therefore help big business subvert safety regulations and policies. These were not policies of a Christian administration. I became disenchanted.

My husband is a veteran of the Persian Gulf War. His best friend died in the conflict. He kept telling me that George Bush was going to use 9/11 to invade Iraq. I told him he was crazy. I told him that he could not get away with using a national tragedy to invade a sovereign nation who was not involved in any way to 9/11. I was wrong. I under estimated the fear and anger of the people of our country and the willingness of this party to lie and use tragedy to their advantage. I was perhaps naive. Then the republicans committed the ultimate in heresy in my opinion. They used Christianity to support war, torture, and lies. They associated Christianity with patriotism in a way that it made anyone who did not support the administration both un-American and anti-Christian. I’m still not sure how so many Christians followed like sheep as this new form of perverted Christianity took hold in the United States. The Pope tried to snap Americans out of this “God loves us and hates them” frenzy but he was feeble and died right in the middle of the conflict. Protestant leaders attempted to remind people of the basic Christian tenets but to no avail. Far right Christian political operatives had already created quite a following through e-mail, radio and TV. Christ’s truth had little chance of getting through.

Now I’m mad. I am a mad that the Christianity of the media and of so many Americans is perverted into something I don’t recognize. I’m mad that love of Christ has been so closely associated with love of country and love of president that many Christians can no longer tell the difference. I am mad that the republican party that I once supported no longer exists. At first I thought maybe it never existed in the first place and perhaps I was just stupid or naive. Stephanie Miller was the first to make me feel better. Her dad ran for Vice President with Barry Goldwater years ago and lost. She frequently says that her father would not recognize the republican party of today and would disagree with many of their actions and beliefs. The party used to be for less government and fiscal responsibility. Both ideas are not only forgotten by this party but the opposite holds true for most members. The neo cons are for more government invasion into everyone’s lives and fiscal irresponsibility that has no rival in history. After many years of this sort of big government spending, and invasion into personal lives of Americans the old school republicans are starting to speak out. At first, I’m sure, they kept quiet because they figured republicans subverting the ideas of the party are better than democrats in the end. They changed their mind. It started with the Generals and joint chief of staff speaking out about the military policies of the president. All were handily given their walking papers and forgotten. Now former republican operatives, cabinet members and staffers have echoed my belief that the republican party is no longer the party of Reagan and Nixon and others before them. From wire tapping to gay marriage to suspension of habeas corpus they are speaking out about government invasion into the lives of citizens. From government contracts to uncontrollable government spending they are speaking out against the neo cons and attempting to take back their party. I have spent this election trying to get the neo cons out of office but I also, in the process, want to take back my religion.

Just as the old republicans don’t recognize their party I don’t recognize my Christianity anymore. My Christianity was about do unto others as you would have them do. My Christianity was about what you do to the least of those among you is the measure by which you will be judged. My Christianity is about helping those who can not help themselves and trusting God to take care of you and to stop your enemies. I believe that Christians stopped trusting God on 9/11. They stopped trusting God to protect them and they decided to take matters into their own hands. They decided to forget all of those passages about loving your neighbor and your enemies and they decided that God is no good at protecting the United States. They talk the good talk, about God Bless America and all, but they do not believe it anymore. If they believed God was watching over them and protecting them from their enemies they would not be a pro war, pro preemptive strike, pro torture, pro hate religion. They would not be condoning attacks against gay people and middle eastern people and Muslims. If Christians trusted God they would not be so afraid. They would not be afraid of Muslims or terrorists or secular schools or secular courts or gay marriage or evolution. Christians would trust that God knows what he is doing. That the people who do not believe in Him or follow his commandments will be punished and that we, as mere humans, do not have to do the judging and controlling here on earth. Right- wing Christians no longer believe because 9/11 took away their faith in God to protect us. Christians do not even realize that it happened. Fear silently took hold of their belief and morphed it into hate, revenge and loathing and Christians sat back and said, “look what great Christians we have become. We have taken control of our faith and our country and now we are better Christians.” We are not better Christians, we have forgotten Christ. Of course, this is a great overgeneralization. There are Christians out there wondering what happened just as I am. I like to think they are the quiet majority. The media portrays all Christians as the other kind. The America before God type of Christians that are secure in their belief that they are going to heaven and the rest of America and the world is going to hell for daring to believe that all people have rights, that war might be wrong and America may not be on the right track.

The latest republican operative daring to speak out about the new republicans is David Kuo. Below is the publisher’s description of his new book Tempting Faith in which he describes his transformation from Christian conservative star to Christian speaking out against the wrongs of the republican party. The following was taken from the Barnes and Noble website:

From the PublisherA memoir of politics and faith, by a rising Christian conservative star, up to and including his years working at the Bush White House.
David Kuo came to Washington wanting to use his Christian faith to end abortion, strengthen marriage, and help the poor. He reached the heights of political power, ultimately serving in the White House under George W. Bush, after being policy adviser to John Ashcroft and speech-writer for Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and Bob Dole. It was a dream come true: the chance to fuse his politics and his faith, and an opportunity for Christians not just to gain a seat at the proverbial table but to plan the entire meal.
Kuo spent nearly three years as second in command at the president’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Yet his experience was deeply troubling. It took both the Bush White House and a severe health crisis to show him how his Christian values, and those of millions of Amer- icans, were being corrupted by politics.
Instead of following the teachings of Jesus to serve the needy, Kuo found himself helping to manipulate religious faith for political gain. Public funds were used in battleground states, for Republican campaign events. The legislative process was used as a football, not to pass laws but to deepen purely symbolic fault lines. Grants were incestuously recycled to political cronies. Both before and after 9/11, despite lofty rhetoric from the president claiming that his faith-based program was one of his most important initiatives, there was no serious attempt to fund valuable charities.
Worst of all was the prevailing attitude in the White House and throughout Washington toward Christian leaders. Key Bush aides and Republican operatives spoke of them with contempt and treated them as useful idiots. It became clear, during regular conference calls arranged from the White House with a key group of Christian leaders, that many of these religious leaders had themselves been utterly seduced by politics.
It is time, Kuo argues, for Christians to take a temporary step back from politics, to turn away from its seductions. Tempting Faith is equal parts headline-making expose, political and spiritual memoir, and heartfelt plea for a Christian reexamination of political involvement.

I can only hope that his book reaches the hearts and mind of those who have left Christ behind but do not realize he is missing. I hope that by telling his story David Kuo can help people realize that they have been used by a well tuned political machine to advance an agenda that had little or nothing to do with Christianity and had everything to do with power. The other day I was speaking to someone at my son’s Christian school. A very nice lady who, I’m sure, by any measure would be considered a “good Christian woman.” We were talking about public schools and children with learning problems when she said, “You know it was after the last election that I became politically active.” I immediately perked up because I too had the same experience. She then said, “You know they are trying to take God out of the classroom and out of the court houses…” I then knew exactly what she was talking about. Do not get me wrong. I do not think that the followers of this train of thought are bad people or bad Christians or evil. I simply think they are being used and their views about faith are being perverted slowly into something that Christianity is not. Something that America is not.

Taking God out of the classroom and the court houses is something that is called a wedge issue. There are lots of these issues out there. Flag burning, abortion, etc. They are actually non-issues. They are issues that will not be resolved or changed in my life time or the life time of my children. Wedge issues are a way to con people into voting for you when you intend to do nothing about the issue for which they are voting. For example, there is no great conspiracy among the democrats to remove the ten commandments from court buildings where it already exists. I believe there was one court case in Kentucky regarding this and the court basically said you can not build new government buildings with the ten commandments included. This is a perfectly legitimate decision given that the country has that pesky freedom of religion clause that our forefathers felt was so important that they put it in the constitution first. If democrats are elected the court case will stand and if republicans are elected the court case will stand. If it goes to the supreme court the court case will stand. Unless you change the actual constitution of the United States and amend it in such a way to remove the freedom of religion then the law will stand as it is. Voting for Bush or Kerry or Brown or DeWine will not change the law.

There is no great democratic conspiracy to try to get a majority so they can start removing the word God from our money. These right wing republican organizations send out irritating e-mails telling their faithful followers that people are trying to take the word God off the money and out of the pledge. My well meaning mother used to forward them to me all the time. Is this based on truth? Perhaps one guy somewhere in Idaho or Maine or wherever sued the government to make a point about freedom of religion. However, that one guy from Idaho is not running for Senate or Congress and even if he did he would never get a proposal of this sort through the house or senate for a vote. It just will not happen. It is a non-issue. It is a scare tactic, a way to get voters fired up enough to go to vote for republicans. Even if the word were removed I doubt churches would have to close for lack of people just because they no longer see the word God on their money. Have you ever seen legislation about this? Republicans have controlled the house and senate for over a decade now. They have controlled the executive branch for 5 years. Have they made any progress on these wedge issues? Of course not. First of all they are non-issues. Secondly, if they pass legislation on abortion or putting the word “God” on money what in the world would they do to get you to vote for them again? They would have to run on things like tax cuts for the rich and creating jobs oversees. They would never be elected again.

This year as Iraq became a quagmire of death and destruction, the Katrina victims continued to have no where to live and energy prices soared our government’s agenda included a week of discussion about flag burning. Really! An entire week discussing flag burning. Has there been a recent outbreak of flag burning here in the United States that has not been covered on the news? When is the last time someone burned a flag in America? Is this issue really worth a week out of the 97 days that congress was in session this year? Of course not. Why did the republicans insist on putting it on the agenda? They were performing for their base. Those people out there in the U.S. that think that flag burning is such a burning issue (a little pun there) that they will vote for their Congressman because he introduced an amendment about flag burning. By the way, it did not pass although the republicans are in the majority in both houses of Congress. Wonder why?

Wake up. Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with America’s government. Look at my past posts for more historical information if you like but regardless of what your e-mail or televangelists have told you our fore-fathers were against religion being involved in the government. Many were Christians but they deliberately made religion separate so that no one religion, including Christianity, could make the rules for all people. The pilgrims and colonists fled to this country to escape religious persecution by other Christians. Our fore-fathers did not want a king telling everyone which denomination to follow and which customs and beliefs to follow. They set the system up so that a Catholic president could not make divorce and birth control illegal or a Pentecostal president could not make talking in tongues a requirement for Congress. Rather than thanking our fore-fathers for protecting their right to believe crazy, wacko things like pre-emptive war is approved by God, our right wing Christian groups are simply telling everyone a different version of history. Then they tell everyone that if you do not support the president’s actions you are not a good American nor a good Christian and therefore you are against the United States and against Christianity. This type of broad generalizations and circular thinking has worked remarkably well by using these wedge issues as political ammunition. For example, if you do not want to make abortion illegal in every circumstance then you are for killing babies. If you are not for taking over a sovereign nation and bombing innocent women and children then you want to help the terrorists kill your children and you are not a Christian. Why does it seem so absurd as I type it but does not seem absurd to people when the administration and FOX news say it over and over again?

I’m tired of Christianity being perverted into something it is not. Christianity should be based on the Bible. It should be based on what Christ said and what Christ did and what Christ taught. Christ did not die so that Americans could spread democracy. He actually did not talk about spreading freedom and democracy to all parts of the globe as some Christians would have you believe. Jesus did not hang an American flag in his hut nor did he feel the government should step in and decide what is morally right or wrong. Jesus did not encourage his disciples to go and lobby Rome for stricter laws regarding homosexuals, divorce and prostitution. He said, “go and sin no more.” He did not encourage his disciples to forget their own sin and do something about all the homosexuals running around Israel. Jesus felt the greatest sin was the hypocrisy of the pharasees and the greed of the tax collectors. My husband told me that he saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, “The last time the conservatives persecuated a liberal Christ died.” At the end of Jesus’ life it was the pharasees who the people believed. Who will you believe?

Today is a sad day in our country. Normally I write my blog and sit on it for a month or so before I post it so that I have time to think over what I’ve written. Not so today. Our country has turned a corner that should have never been turned and undoing that misstep, I’m afraid, will take many years and many lives. Today, September 29, 2006 we have become a nation that approves of torturing human beings. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not naive enough to believe that Americans have never tortured other people. I’m sure in times of war and in times of peace the military and other security agency personnel have tortured individuals. As a country, however, the United States was above that. Bad things happen and bad people do bad things but overall torture was not an approved technique of gaining information or of treating people. Veteran military and security agency personnel will tell you that you can gain very little, if any, useful information with the use of physical torture. Psychological interrogation methods work much better. Ask John McCain or others who have been POW’s. Prisoners will say anything to make the pain stop but they won’t necessarily tell the truth. McCain gave the names of the Packers when tortured instead of the names his torturers were looking for.

America used to be above the use of torture. We were the land of the free and the land of rights for all human beings everywhere. Prosecutors during the Nuremburg trials went out of their way to be sure that the Nazi’s had fair trials. Why? Because we were not them…We were above that. Not today. We have become what we have hated most. We have become what we were meant to be fighting. Today Osama bin Laden won. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, “there is nothing to fear but fear itself.” Today our country gave into fear (again) and let it change our values and our beliefs. We let fear change our laws and threaten our constitution. We let fear win today and by doing so we let the terrorists change us to a nation without freedom, without justice and without civil rights.

Of course it is not the first time in America this has happened. Civil rights and justice were stomped upon during the McCarthy era and in the World War II internment camps. Our country ignored the rights of blacks for decades before recognizing them as human beings. It is not the first time the United States has overlooked civil rights and justice for all. I liked to believe, however, that we wouldn’t go backwards. That we had learned from communism and from past mistakes that holding people without due process was wrong. We constantly ridicule China for taking prisoners without charging them, without giving them rights such as rights to a lawyer or the right to know why they are being held. Now we are the same. Today our congress decided that we can take people off the street and imprison them for an undefined period of time without charging them, without providing them a lawyer and without telling them why they have been imprisoned. Our country has agreed that anyone who is “arrested” by our country can be tortured and treated in any manner that our president feels is proper without any oversight by the congress or judiciary. The president does not have to provide evidence as to why this person is believed to be dangerous or have dangerous information. Anyone could be subjected to this torture without cause.

Recently a Canadian citizen was subjected to this torture at the hands of the United States. He was held and tortured and later discovered to be completely innocent of all charges and let go. This could be you or this could be me. I’ve written lots of negative things about Bush and this government. They could come to my house tomorrow, call me a terrorist and torture me relentlessly for as long as they deem appropriate. There would be no oversight, no lawyer, no one to protect me. My family would not have to be told. This is not a bill that should exist under our constitution or in a democracy. This does not uphold justice or rights or freedom.

For those who think that we can trust the president to choose only those really really bad terrorists to torture…Think again. This president has been approving torture for the past 5 years. Knowing that torture was illegal and against the Geneva convention, this president has approved torture and has created secret prisons in other countries to get around the laws. This president has also lied about those secret prisons until they were discovered and he had to tell the truth. This president has ignored the FISA court and has authorized illegal wiretapping and surveillance of phone and financial records without remorse or apology. This president believes in torture and nominated a Attorney General who is willing to re-write our laws and constitution to support the president’s desire to torture people. Isn’t this the exact trait that we so abhorred in Saddam Hussein that we felt it necessary to remove him from power? Sean Hannity loves to talk about the rape rooms and torture chambers of Saddam as our reason for taking over Iraq. How can we then do the exact same thing and not be equally abhorrent? The logic escapes me.

There are those in our culture who honestly believe that the end justifies the means. That is no surprise although very sad and frightening. Even if we did get useful intelligence from torture, which has not yet happened and may not ever happen, the end can not justify the means. Torture should never be an approved form of interrogation in our country. The most obvious reason is that we are better than that. We do not approve of it in China or Russia or pre-war Iraq therefore we should not approve of it here. Second, by condoning torture we put ourselves and our own troops in more danger than ever before. Once we ignore the Geneva convention our own citizens could be taken off the streets by foreign governments and tortured without cause and there is nothing our government could do about it. The foreign government could simply say that we are suspected terrorists and that would have to be the end of the conversation. Finally, by torturing alleged terror suspects we are creating more enemies and more terrorists around the world. Al Queda has already admitted that the US has done more to boost their enrollment than anything they could have done themselves. What we did to the prisoners of Abu Garab prison helped to encourage the people of Iraq to join the insurgency and fight against Americans. Other countries such as Iran, Venezuela and North Korea have been emboldened by our behavior because they finally have popular support in their own country to fight us. This stems from our treatment of people and our loss of the moral high ground. No longer can people say that the US is really just trying to help and we should then support them. People see us as an evil force because our policies are suddenly supporting evil deeds and evil techniques. The administration thinks that since Americans have not noticed then other people around the world will not notice. This is not the case.

The Iranian President was on 360 with Anderson Cooper last week. Cooper cut clips of the interview with the Iranian President and clips of Bush’s speech in the UN. It was chilling. Bush came across as a bully. He came across as a man who felt he could do whatever he wanted without justification and without cause. Bush came across as someone without boundaries and who could tell others what to do without limit. The Iranian President talked about wanting peace. He sounded like a man being unfairly picked on by the school yard bully and repeatedly talked about wanting to sit down with Bush and talk about the problem in a peaceful and congenial manner. Now, as an American and as someone who is not completely naive I tend to not believe the Iranian president when he says he does not want nuclear weapons. Whether the Iranian President was sincere or lying it does not really matter. He came across as the underdog. He came across as the victim. The Iranian president came across as the bigger man, the man who wants peace but is being denied peace. To anyone watching, the effect was chilling. The United States is digging itself into a hole where we will lose support of our allies and we will be the “bad guys” of the world. That is not a place we have ever been in our 200 year history and it will not be a good place to be once it happens.

Of all the people in this country I would guess that the lawyers would be the most appalled by today’s vote. The lawyers are the ones who know the law, the constitution and the way that our justice system works. The lawyers know that the justice system is meaningless without the basic freedoms afforded our citizens and any human being who is tried under the parameters of our legal system. The entire judicial system is based on the basic idea of justice. Justice includes fairness. Each person has the opportunity to see the evidence against him in order to create a proper defense. Each person has the right to an attorney or someone who knows how the law works and what the evidence means. Every person has the right to a quick trial meaning that people can not be held indefinitely without charges. People must be charged with some type of crime and told what that crime is so that they know how to defend themselves. Everyone has the right to proper treatment. It is a proven fact, in research and in real events, people will incriminate themselves when tortured even if they are completely innocent. People will say anything to make torture stop even if it means saying that they did something they did not really do. That is why it is illegal in our country to torture a confession out of someone. It is not admissible because people lie in order to stop the pain. I have not been to law school but I’m guessing they cover this the first year. These laws were created in our country because they work. They make justice possible. That is why they are used throughout the world to this day. They were used in the Nuremburg trials, and they are being used in Saddam’s trial. They are used because they are the moral way, they are the democratic way and they allow for justice. Congress forgot that today but Americans should never forget. Americans should not go on with their lives and allow this miscarriage of justice to go unrecognized. Americans need to speak up and say that torture is not the right way and torture is not the American way.

2-2-07
New information about the Canadian who was deported to Syria to be tortured can be found at:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/america/NA-GEN-US-Canada-Arar.php

It is about being right and not about doing right. This is the only way I can explain the views of the 33% or so Americans who continue to think the President is doing what is best for America. I have talked to a number of these individuals, many of whom are my friends and family. They continue to support the President regardless of what new illegal, dishonest or downright sneaky actions he commits. The press, who has finally woken up from their post 9/11 fear of printing anything negative about the administration, has been revealing disturbing facts about the way this administration has been operating for the past 5 years. Millions of Americans have been shocked, appalled and sickened by the abuses of power and the attack on our constitution. Others, however, are secure in their convictions that they voted correctly regardless of the facts. Really, who needs facts when you have great self-esteem?

These Americans sometimes site patriotism as their reason for supporting the President regardless of his actions. Following a leader regardless of his actions, however, has nothing to do with patriotism. Loyalist would be a better description. Loyalists remain loyal to their ruler regardless of his actions even if those actions violate the premise of their own country. The term was popular in the US during the revolutionary war and was used to describe people loyal to the king. Patriots, on the other hand, are looking out for what is best for the country. Patriots defend the constitution of the United States regardless of who is the current President and regardless of political affiliation. That is why every soldier presently serving our country is a patriot. Although many do not believe in what this President stands for, they do believe in America and our constitution and they defend it each day by putting their lives at risk.

Our constitution specifically names three separate but equal branches of government that are to act as a type of fail safe. Anyone who has seen Saturday morning cartoons know that no one branch is to hold all of the power. That is why the executive branch can veto a bill but the legislative branch can vote to override the veto. President Bush has illegally signed hundreds of bills by simply crossing out parts he does not like or adding statements saying that he does not have to follow the laws if he chooses not to. By doing this, he avoids the veto process in which congress would/could vote down the changes he has made to the bill. Most frightening is that he did this with last year’s so called “torture bill” on which he wrote that the president could order torture of enemies if he deems fit even though the bill expressly forbids it. This is undermining our constitution and is a way for the executive branch to hold power without oversight by the legislative or judicial branches of government. This is the largest danger that faces the United States today.

Another way this president has snubbed the constitution is by ignoring the FISA court. President Bush admits that he has ordered wire-tapping and searches of phone and financial records of millions of citizens without gaining a warrant. The FISA court was created in order to make it easy for federal agents to gain necessary warrants in a secretive manner. The court has rarely denied requests for warrants and actually grants warrants up to 72 hours AFTER the search or wire-tapping. If our administration or any security agency really needed to conduct wire-tapping or other searches on suspected terrorists they could have easily gained a warrant either before or after the search was conducted. This is the legal way to conduct such searches in the United States. By deliberately not getting these warrants, the government has conducted illegal searches. Of course, the court then could throw out any evidence discovered during these searches. So why would the government not get a warrant if it is easy and if they cannot use the evidence without one. Why has President Bush continued to stand behind his decision to conduct searches without a warrant and why has he refused to turn over lists of people whom were involved in these searches and wiretaps? There is only one logical answer to these questions. The government does not intend to prosecute these people and the FISA court would not grant a warrant if asked because the people were not enemies of the state. The only logical reason why Bush would not attempt to get a warrant would be that these people are not terrorists at all but just people who disagree with him and have somehow crossed his radar by either protesting against him or running in an election against a republican candidate. Bush refuses to give out these names and refuses to adjourn an oversight committee because he will be caught. Bush continues to refuse to comply with federal law and gain warrants for searches and wiretapping.

Other presidents have been careful to maintain the equality of power among the branches because they know how important this balance is in a democracy. President Nixon nominated a liberal judge for Supreme Court while Jimmy Carter nominated a conservative. These presidents and others before them both understood the importance of our constitution and our democracy and put the wellbeing of both before the wishes of their party. It is not against the law to do otherwise but it certainly undermines the constitution each time Bush attempts to throw off the balance of power and attempts to gain more power for the executive branch. I would hope that even die-hard republicans could see the danger in the precedent given that someday a democrat will again hold the office of president. I wonder if they will be so willing to defend Bush’s actions if a democratic president uses this precedent to get around the laws and the constitution the way Bush has done for the past 5 years.

Finally, there is very clear and overwhelming evidence that Bush lied to congress and the American people in order to gain support for invading Iraq. The republican congress has been able to put off a formal investigation for more than 3 years now because they hold a majority but they did promise, 3 years ago, to investigate the information that led to the invasion of Iraq. They agreed to do this investigation in two parts. The first part was completed relatively quickly because it was the investigation of the intelligence agencies that provided the faulty pre-war intelligence. Even after the investigation was completed, the subcommittees in congress were able to hold off the release of much of the information until now. The investigation found that much of the intelligence gathered was actually correct however; the president only sited the incorrect and misleading intelligence in speeches to the American public and in documents to congress. The CIA and FBI both gave correct intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities and Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda but both were ignored. Bush chose to believe information that supported his decision for war although it was less reliable, more obscure, was disputed openly by our own intelligence agencies, and was in the end, false.

The second part of the promised investigation is to be whether the president and administration knowingly used false information about Iraq in order to gain support for an illegal war. This investigation has not yet formally begun because congress has been able to stall. Why wouldn’t any congressperson in the United States want to know if he or she was lied to by the president of the United States and tricked into giving the president the power to go to war with out just cause? I simply do not understand how a congressperson can put loyalty to their president or their party over a loyalty to their country and their constitution. When Nixon participated in illegal activities and lied about it, his own party insisted that something be done. Americans love to talk about democracy and how we are so wonderful but other countries in the world see our hypocrisy and wonder why we feel we have any right to preach to the rest of them. Other countries see very clearly that the president of the United States does not follow the rules he is trying to force them to implement and therefore we, as a country, have become a joke in the Middle East, in Europe and in the rest of the world. The president of Russia sees this irony but 33% of Americans in this country have not caught on yet.

Injecting religion into this equation has only made the situation more bizarre. Recently someone told me that I am not a good Christian because I believe the president is lying. Last Memorial Day I sat through a sermon about why it is okay to put the flag behind the cross. The premise was good. He started by saying that the cross comes first but we are all Americans after we are Christians. The problem came with the delivery in which he explained why we all must support America’s war and America’s government because we are good Christians. That part was a bit confusing to me if not downright heresy. When were Christians called by God to support American political figures or political agendas? I can see being deemed unchristian if I questioned God’s truthfulness or motives. I can even see how some would think me unchristian by questioning the king, if we had one, since many believed kings have divine rights to the throne. When did God start supporting our president or our country above all others? I think it is odd that Americans have begun to believe such absurdity although the religious right has spent billions of dollars to force this connection. The truly frightening thing, however, is that the religious right, and those who follow them, does not recognize the heretical act in claiming God is on their side.

The Christian right has made a political agenda of supporting one party regardless of their actions in order to advance their political agenda to ban gay marriage and outlaw abortion. Although they may have true religious beliefs about these two issues, they have misrepresented Christianity in order to advance this agenda. They have overlooked or even supported many actions by the administration that are questionable if not outright antichristian. The religious right has increased racism, bigotry and hatred in this country at a rate that is beyond compare in any other era. They have increased separatism and have been feeding on and encouraging the divided political atmosphere of our nation. This has not only made it impossible for Congress to work together to help anyone in our country, it has fed an anger toward homosexuals, liberals, democrats, feminists, muslims, immigrants etc that has resulted in violence against these groups. This effort to divide the people of our country and to ignore the political left may have helped their two main causes but it has left a majority of our nation without representation. It also has turned ordinary people, even Christians, away from the church and our religion. The plight of the poor has been virtually unheard for the past 5 years, as the rich have gotten billions of dollars worth of tax breaks. They have overlooked or even supported unjust war, torture, the death penalty, decreased gun control, and program cuts for our poorest citizens in order to advance their narrow agenda.

I have another good friend that will claim that the above paragraph is judgmental and therefore antichristian. He would tell me that by claiming they are not following God I am being judgmental and therefore doing the same as them. I do not think that is the case. We are called, as Christians, to spread the good news and to point out those who are misrepresenting our faith. In the book of Revelations John writes to the first church, “I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” This is his complement to them before he then criticizes them for forgetting their first love. God. By putting America and our president on a pedestal, have we too forgotten our first love? Again, in the letter to Smyrna John states there is “slander by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” John recognizes the people of Smyrna for choosing to suffer rather than to follow those who claim to follow God but who are not. John spoke of the same ideas in his letter to Philadelphia. Are we forgetting to look for false apostles and are we overlooking their false statements because we are afraid to judge other Christians?

Jesus was especially concerned about the religious people of His time who were misrepresenting the Father and who were hypocritical. I believe the people of the religious right are the Pharisees of our time. They have twisted the message of the Bible so completely that it is unrecognizable to me as a Christian woman. Jesus spoke of love, forgiveness, giving all that you have for the poor and the least of these. Jesus spoke about humility and faith that God will judge and that we do not need to judge. The only warning he gave was to avoid the religious leaders who pointed out the sins of others without the proper humility. Jesus had great contempt for these religious leaders and stated that their sin is greater than any sins they were preaching about. I believe that supporting the hedonistic, violent and dishonest tendencies of this administration in order to gain political power to persecute people is the greatest sin. Even if they believe the people they are persecuting are acting in a sexually immoral, it does not excuse their own actions. The end does not justify the means, so to speak.

As Americans, we have freedom of religion so we tend to think that everyone has the right to think and say whatever they want to think and say. As Americans we do have this right. The religious right has a right to distort Jesus’ message in our country without consequence from the government. They can believe that Jesus is pro war, pro torture, anti gay, pro gun, etc. and legally they have a right to believe that and preach that. The ACLU would be inflamed if we tried to deny them that right. As Christians, however, we are not supposed to just sit back and ignore false statements by other Christians. We are not supposed to overlook their hypocrisy and ignore their distortion of our faith. We are caught up in the right of Americans to think whatever they want to think and we forget that we are Christians first and then Americans. The cross should be in front of the flag, not the opposite. Christians have an obligation to God to point out when other Christians are distorting His teachings. Historically Christians have upheld the premise of peace, equality, and love and we should continue to do that even in the face of the more “popular” Christians preaching the opposite. We should worship only the Father and the Son and recognize that the country and the president are not to be worshipped but admired. Only then can Christianity be omnipresent and the country a true democracy.

The following is from Sojourner’s Magazine weekly e-mail. I had been thinking of writing something on this topic but could not possibly say it better than Jim Wallis, my hero.

Our Moral Choice
by Jim Wallis
On Tuesday, March 7, Jim Wallis spoke on Capitol Hill at a “Rally to Protect America’s Priorities” on the proposed 2007 budget, sponsored by the Emergency Campaign for America’s Priorities, ACORN, and the U.S. Student Association. Following are his remarks.
I want to begin with what the Religious Community said all last year: A budget is a moral document! That was our clarion cry in the 2006 budget debate. If some political leaders haven’t got the message yet - just wait until this year.
You see, we believe that fiscal choices, economic choices are also moral choices and, for us, even religious choices. Who is important? And who is not? What is important? And what is not? Who do we most value? And who don’t we value at all? They are fiscal choices, but also moral and religious matters.
Jesus actually got uncharacteristically judgmental about these kinds of choices. He said, “As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.” Are you paying attention yet, members of Congress?
Because of moral pressure - much of it from the religious community who every day care for the poor that our national politics neglect - last year’s budget almost didn’t pass. It took a fast trip home from Dick Cheney to pass the budget in the Senate and, in the House, the final budget measure only passed by a few votes. Some elected officials were making new moral choices. But the White House and the Republican leadership seem not to have gotten this message from the religious community, by the look of the new budget they now propose. I thought we were supposed to be their base?
You see a budget process is just a series of moral choices: tax cuts for the wealthiest, or services for the poorest? Congressional pork and earmarks, or investments in the common good? Searching for security through endless expenditures for war, or seeking to end the insecurity of poverty to make our nation stronger? Ignoring the costs of deficits for our children’s children, and making the most vulnerable pay the price of fiscal responsibility; or sharing the burdens of financial responsibility more fairly by not asking the poor to carry the heaviest load?
These are all moral choices. Those with the power to make budget proposals have made their moral choices; and so will we. They are choosing to bestow more windfalls of benefit on their wealthy donors - that’s their moral choice. We will stand up for the low-income families that we know and serve and whom they will again ignore - no, assault - that’s our moral choice.
They are choosing the corruption of rewarding the special interests who pay for them - that’s their moral choice. We will defend those who have the most need - that’s our moral choice. They will place no limits on money for wars that have no end, and weapons systems that have no need - that’s their moral choice. We will not let them cut vital programs of nutrition, health care, child care, and education to pay for their bad choices - that’s our moral choice.
Here is what the biblical prophet Isaiah says about their moral choices: “Woe to the legislators of infamous laws, to those who issue tyrannical decrees, who refuse justice to the unfortunate and cheat the poor among my people of their rights, and make widows their prey and rob the orphan.”
Last Dec. 14, 115 Christians who work with the poor every day, interrupted their works of compassion to come to the Capitol-to pray, preach, and prophesy. And we were taken to jail. Mary Nelson, from Chicago, looked up at the congressional staff and members looking out their windows and invited them, “Come walk with us.”
John Perkins, 75-year-old evangelical and Black church leader who has spent his life in faithful ministry with poor people, told the story of his mother’s death from a nutritional deficiency when he was seven months old. John said he was breastfeeding at the time and thought for years that he had killed her. Only later, he said, did I realize that a white society doesn’t care about the nutrition of poor black women and their families. And now they’re trying to cut food stamps from this budget. Then he emotionally said, “This is my last stand,” before he was arrested.
Due in part to the pressure from religious community - we saved food stamps from cuts. Now, the proposed cuts stamps are back. People should know that many of those arrested last December voted for George Bush, some twice. Now they get arrested to protest his moral choices. They were his base, they are no longer.
The media noted that the words religious, Christian, even evangelical, are no longer just alongside the words abortion and gay marriage, but now alongside words like food stamps, health care, and education. Get used to it. When the politicians pat faith-based organizations on the back for doing such a wonderful job, they are now turning around and saying, “Stop hurting the people we work with and care about!” Come walk with us.
After the vote, Republicans e-mailed me, “I just want you to know that I voted against this budget and am listening to the religious community.” Bless you. Overcoming poverty must be a bipartisan commitment and a nonpartisan cause. The religious community will ask Democrats to stand firm against this budget violence against poor people, to make the moral choice of favoring the poor over the rich - which is also a biblical choice. Democrats must get religion on the budget.
And we will ask Republicans: Follow your conscience, not your party. Help your party make better moral choices than favoring the rich over the poor - stop turning the biblical wisdom upside down - and then having the nerve to claim that you are the religion-friendly party! It’s time for Republicans to get religion on this budget.
We’ve had a year of organizing around the budget in the religious community. We are watching this debate very carefully. We will hold our elected officials accountable in 2006 and 2008 for their votes on this budget - whether they vote for or against poor families.
If you think we were aroused last year, we were just getting started. Budgets are moral documents and we will fight this budget. And that’s our moral choice.