"...Not a Dime's Worth of Difference Between...."

The other day when Bush was asked whether he would go into Pakistan to capture Bin Laden? He immediately said, 'Pakistan is a sovereign country, and we can't go into a sovereign country without being invited'. Excuse me - Is this an epiphany on the sanctity of another country's sovereignty? Was not Iraq also a sovereign country? Did Saddam invite Bush into his country? Did that stop the Bushites from illegally attacking, invading and occupying it? It's clear that when it comes to illegal, criminal actions by this gang, they are very selective of who's sovereignty they will or will not respect. With this illegality in mind, all discussions by liberals and conservatives alike, about what to do about Iraq and the quagmire we created there, are moot. I even hear liberals saying, had we gone in there with the proper number of troops, and planned better for the eventual occupation, things would have worked out much better. I say no! - we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place! It was based and predicated on a supremacist imperial notion of hegemony, that believes we have the right to take whatever land and resources that we covet, anywhere in the world. Any discussion of how we should have gone in etc., ignores the fact that it was wrong and illegal from the start, and the blood of hundreds of thousands that were killed and maimed, plus the massive destruction of cities, utilities, infrastructure etc., are charged against us, and we will have to give an account of it to Almighty God one day. It's clear that this disease of supremacist thinking, and the willingness to act illegally on it, is shared by liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans, alike. Although few will admit it, 9/11 happened because of past instances of our imperial hubris similar to our invasion and occupation of Iraq, which pissed-off millions, maybe billions, of people around the world. Will we ever be able to live in peace with our neighbors, without trying to tell them what to do, and taking what resources we need from them?

How Do You Deal With Evil?

In my study of the history of World War II, many writers said that Hitler and his inner circle, in their private lives, were very sociable and jocular, and loved attending the opera and attending symphonic music concerts. If we did not know about the depravity of their policies and deeds, many would say these were pretty nice, cultured people. Does being nice privately, excuse and make acceptable, those who are supportive of global hegemony, involving the gratuitous bombing of civilians and their infrastructure, and other murderous policies? Do we disregard the evil they are supportive of, and base our approval on how nice they are personally and privately? I think one has to look at the total person and decide if the policies they support disqualify them from being considered good people, and are therefore, unworthy of our regard, respect and friendship. If most of us would apply this standard to an extreme case like Hitler, we should certainly also consider applying this same standard to those around us who are supportive of the evils of this current administration and it's allies.
I was taught as a young person, and I still believe, if you want to know what kind of person someone is, a good starting point is to consider their personal political beliefs, and what causes they support.

Saddam Shook Hands With The Devil !!

I remember the early 70s when George Bush Sr., was CIA director, and a picture of him posing with his arm around Saddam's shoulder on a visit to Iraq, appeared in our local newspaper. Back then Saddam was our boy, and was supported by us and sold WMDs to contain the Iranians and any domestic threats to his regime. Not surprisingly, he used the WMDs on the northern Kurds when they revolted against his dictatorship. He was our proxy then, but he should have been tipped off that we were hedging our bets, when our other proxy, Israel, was given the go-ahead to bomb his nuclear facilities in 1981. Nevertheless, he continued to stay somewhat in our good graces until he was no longer useful to us. That is when we tricked him by giving the tacit go-ahead to invade Kuwait in response to a border dispute with them. As soon as he invaded, we double-crossed him, and initiated a military action against him, resulting in a decade of sanctions and no-fly zones against his country. The other shoe was dropped by the second George Bush, who invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Saddam is now on trial (and among other things, he is accused of gassing the Kurds), his country is in tatters, and is also undergoing a ruinous civil war. The lessons he should have learned, is that when you shake hands with the devil, he invariably and eventually will turn against you. George Bush is not the devil, despite the recent assertions of Hugo Chavez in his United Nations speech last week. The devil is our desire for global hegemony, that has been the backbone of our foreign policy since the later years of the 19th century. That is why Saddam had to go, he was only useful up to a point, then his oil became too valuable for him to remain in control of it. Chavez is in the same quandary, his oil reserves are even larger than those of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Wisely, he is aligning himself with countries that don't have hegemonic designs on the rest of the world, and so far, is sensibly keeping his distance from us.

A New Perpetual Enemy

This past weekend, the NYTimes reported that our incursion into Iraq has actually made us LESS safe, because of the creation and radicalization of jihadists in the Arab world, who are opposed to our illegal occupation and our plans for further global hegemony. In my view, this radicalization and creation of a new enemy, is exactly what special interests in the US wanted, to replace the loss of the threats from the Soviet Union. They believe we must have a perpetual enemy to justify the maintenance and growth of the Military Industrial Complex, which is composed of defense, oil, media, chemicals, and a host of other related industries. Without a war (currently on 'terror') or threat of war with an 'enemy', it's hard to rally our people behind their hegemonic plans. In my view, two primary objectives necessitated the U.S. invasion of Iraq; Oil, and our support for Israel, who has her own regional hegemonic plans. The CIA estimates China's and India's surging, oil-hungry economies will cause world oil shortages by 2030 - or sooner. Accordingly, the Bushites moved to assure America's global hegemony by seizing Mideast and Central Asian oil before the impending crisis. Doing so required occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Any other reasons offered, such as 'spreading democracy', 'weapons of mass destruction' etc., are pure fiction and should be ignored and disregarded.

It's the Devil In the Details!

So Hugo Chavez just referred to George Bush as a 'devil', in his speech to the United Nations Assembly. Predictably, these remarks have caused a firestorm of indignation and criticism, such as, "How dare he come into our country and insult our leader!" There was also a host of other responses from various other politicians eager to distance themselves from Chavez's remarks. What everyone seems to forget however, is our leader has aided and abetted those who have tried twice, to overthrow and possibly kill Chavez, who was democratically elected. And worse, one of our leading evangelical Christians, Pat Robertson, also publicly called for Chavez's assassination. These are glaring examples of two professing Christians, who see no inconsistency in trying to kill someone they don't like, and the message of Jesus, which says to love one's enemies, and to be blessed as peacemakers. Also let us not forget that Bush previously identified Chavez as being part of the "axis of evil", and called him a populist dictator, a tyrant, and a drug trafficker, among other things. How should we expect Chavez to react to that kind of personal attack and prior attempts to kill him? Why should we be surprised that he views Bush as a 'devil'? If Bush does not like being called a 'devil', I suggest he stop doing devilish things, like lying us into an illegal war, torturing captured enemy soldiers, and a host of other things. And how would we view someone who actively tried to kill us? I think Chavez used this world stage to respond to the attempts on his life that Bush was a part of, so I am not surprised at what he said. What I do commend Chavez for, is his humanitarian sale of low-cost heating fuel and gasoline last year, to our urban poor in the northeast states. This year he plans to increase the amount available to 100 million gallons, up from 40 million gallons sold last year, to the poor in a total of nine states. As an ex-oilman, Bush should be embarrassed and insulted that a foreigner is doing more for the fuel needs of our poorest citizens, than he is doing. Where is Bush's compassion for the poor of our country in the face of unconscionable doubling and tripling of fuel prices since he took office? It took a stranger to provide the price relief so desperately needed by so many of our citizens. It should also be remembered, that both Chavez and Fidel Castro immediately offered to send badly needed aid to the victims of Katrina, but it was rejected by the Bush administration, long before FEMA belatedly acted to relieve their suffering.

Considering all this, who would you say is a 'devil', and who would you say is 'evil'?

"....Thy Kingdom Come....."

It is so difficult to pray for those who I feel have lied to us, and are yet actively raining down death and destruction on hundreds of thousands of others in countries that have never attacked us. All this is being done in the name of 'spreading freedom', and 'bringing democracy'. This evil is addressed by Paul in Eph. 6:12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Even though it is difficult, we should continue to pray for those who are our leaders, and for those who have the rule over us.

This is my prayer; 'Father God, You know all things, and You know the truths of our domestic and foreign policies, and how they are impacting us at home, and others abroad. Because You are all powerful, I ask you to restrain, contain and eliminate the evil that is being done in my name. You know my heart, and you know I don't support imperial conquests by our military, spreading democracy by the sword, tax cuts for the rich and cuts in services for the poor, and all manner of other evils that are being done by our leadership. I ask that Your kingdom will spread, and that Your will may continue to be done on earth, as it is in heaven. We are told to pray without ceasing, so please give me the strength and the courage to do so, and always to resist evil and to seek justice for all. I ask all these things in the matchless name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen!'

Are You a 'Red-Letter' Christian?

I just came across this label for Christians that I like much better than 'Evangelical Christian', which has been unfortunately conflated with right-wing politics, as evidenced by the 83% of Evangelicals who vote Republican. 'Red-Letter' describes a Christian who knows that Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and the words of Jesus that are in red in most New Testament versions, are His directives that are meant to be followed. I am disturbed by policies that have made life much worse for those already poor, the increasing imperialism and militarism, the pre-emptive doctrine that has resulted in the loss of life for hundreds of thousands of our neighbors who don't look like us, the lack of a national healthcare program for all our citizens - all these policies and actions are condemned by the red letter words of Jesus. In these words He calls on us to take care of the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick, the stranger, the prisoner, as if we are doing it unto Him. He tells us to be merciful, to be peaceful and be peacemakers, to love our enemies - not kill them in a war on terrorism, not to look at the loss of civilian life as mere 'collateral damage'. He does not tell us to cut the taxes of the wealthiest while cutting the food stamps of the poor. His is a message of justice, peace, compassion, integrity and equity, which are all conspicuously missing from the policies of our right-wing administration and supported and endorsed by many Evangelicals. Their Christianity consists of affluent conformity, greed and covetousness, political party loyalty, support for Israel no matter what the outrage is, and their mantra is 'God Bless America while killing our enemies' - all are at variance with the central message of Jesus Christ. His message transcends partisan party politics, it is anti-consumerism, and meeting the needs of the poor is the prime message and responsibility given to His followers.

To those of you who are Christians, which kind of Christian are you?