The Battle Tract of the Republic

Scott Ritsema
CIVICS NEWS
December 31, 2009



The American Tract Society is, to my knowledge, a reputable Christian organization that has historically been devoted to the advancement of the gospel (albeit utilizing fear tactics and thus painting a distorted picture of God from time to time). They should be applauded for their work for nearly 200 years in pointing people to the salvation found in Jesus. Given all of this, I regret the need to offer some public, constructive criticism of their latest tract.

No, this critique is not directed at the all too standard "turn-or-burn" tracts that have littered American evangelical circles for years. The subject of this article is this tract (I will not call it a "Gospel Tract") that troubled me greatly. It is entitled, "War in Afghanistan: The Price of Freedom." The tract reads:

At the present time the United States has troops deployed in Afghanistan fighting for the freedom of their people. America has long fought for and defended freedom in our country and around the world, beginning with the Revolutionary War and continuing up to the present. Many other times since then, our country has fought for democracy and against tyranny. Over the last 200 years many countries around the world have been released from oppression because American troops were willing to pay the price for freedom. We have helped liberate millions of people.

The Fight Against Oppression and Poverty

Our country became involved in the Afghanistan struggle shortly after the events of September 11, 2001. The United States sent troops to Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking members of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. The United States is also striving to break the yoke of the Taliban in that country. American troops defend and support the people of Afghanistan in their struggle against oppression and poverty.

Service and Sacrifice

Our troops have killed or captured many terrorists since the War on Terror began. Americans should have great pride in the valor of our military personnel in Afghanistan. Quite often we encounter our brave troops dressed in camouflage in airports, restaurants, and other public places. At these times we should express our appreciation to them for their service and sacrifice. The fight for freedom has a high cost. Many of our courageous soldiers have suffered injury during combat in Afghanistan. Many of our soldiers have lost their lives in the conflict there. They have paid the supreme sacrifice for freedom.

My first critique of this tract is similar to that which I made in a previous post (Christians: Let's Disavow Nationalism and Cease Praying to the God of War). Simply put, the continual references to "our" military and "our" troops are not consistent with a Christian organization's mission to represent the body of Christ and to call people into citizenship in the Kingdom of God. If a Christian organization says "us," it ought to be referring primarily to either the community of believers or humanity in general. Where in the New Testament are Christians permitted to identify so prominently with the military force of a worldly kingdom, with the tribal nationalistic identity of human governments? [See Chapter 7 of The Way, the Truth and the Sword.]

Secondly, though the gospel is presented as an after-thought at the end of their pro-war statement, the bulk of this tract has NOTHING to do with the gospel! Regardless of what opinion you take on the war, shouldn't every Christian oppose a tract that confuses a political agenda with the gospel? What kind of message are we sending to the world? The unsuspecting recipient of this tract would inevitably conclude that the church is an organization that supports war, supports the Bush-Obama imperial policies, and believes in the myth of the benevolent American Empire. Even if a reasonable Christian could rightly hold such positions (more on this below), this government propaganda has no place whatsoever on a gospel tract. Shouldn't this be obvious to Christians across the political spectrum? Jesus lived and taught in a politically charged world, but he taught an ideology that transcended each of the partisan responses of his contemporaries: violence, narrow elitism, escapism and compromise (the ideologies of the Zealots, the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Herodians, respectively). The gospel is not a political agenda.

To bring the point home more clearly, the most offensive facet of this tract is the war policy that it so adamantly supports. The objective observer cannot read the New Testament and conclude that the the way of Jesus embraces anything but committed non-violence. Jesus commands us to love our enemies. Period. And the apostles reiterate this teaching. It is a crystal clear teaching, and it is not possible to love somebody while killing them and their families. If these tracts are supposed to be Bible tracts, I challenge the American Tract Society to re-issue a revised version of this tract with New Testament justification for the avid Christian support of war, and if New Testament Scriptures cannot be found to support this view, then the Society should do the right thing and discontinue the tract with a statement of repentance.

It comes as no surprise that the Christian church was committed to non-violence (until the fall of the church at the time of Constantine); after all, non-violence is the clear and obvious teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Among the American Tract Society's "Core Values" is the goal "to conduct this ministry with integrity and fidelity to Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture." There is a clear contradiction here. It is absolutely tragic that Christianity--which was founded in large part as a spiritual and social response to a powerful Roman government and whose founder was martyred by the empire of his day for inaugurating a new and better Kingdom--is now putting out tracts that communicate the view that Christianity and imperial warfare are natural allies, rather than natural opponents. [See Chapter 5 of The Way, the Truth and the Sword.]

Well, the tract ends with an attempt at the statement of the gospel, which was unfortunately undermined if not completely negated by the previous militaristic paragraphs on the tract. The gospel presentation at the end of the tract reads:

The Ultimate Sacrifice

Over 2000 years ago the ultimate sacrifice was made for mankind. A great victory was won to provide freedom for each one of us. It was the victory over sin and death. Jesus Christ sacrificed His life when He died on the cross and rose from the dead to set us free. Jesus was more than a hero. He was the Savior of the world. The Bible reveals that we are all sinners (Romans 3:23), and sin prevents us from having a relationship with God. The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Our brave men and women in the military die to save fellow soldiers and fight to set people free. Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from sin and death. He sacrificed His life for us on the cross.

We will all remember the brave men and women in the military who have sacrificed their lives for our country and to set others free in Afghanistan and around the world. But Jesus Christ sacrificed His life to free us from sin and death so that we might have peace and everlasting life. Will you place your trust in Jesus Christ today and receive Him as your Savior from sin? You can pray a prayer like this: Dear Jesus, I confess that I am a sinner. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. I ask you to forgive me of my sins, and to grant me the gift of everlasting life. I now trust in you as my Savior.

This portion of the tract presents the all-too-common and completely disgusting comparison between militarism and Jesus. That is, the military--which orders its victim-enforcers to "free" people in foreign countries by invading their land, bombing their cities, and knowingly (and therefore deliberately) killing civilians--is likened unto the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. This comparison should deeply trouble every Christian. Though it is not new (see previous post, "The Battle "Hymn" of the Republic"), the comparison between predator drones killing people on behalf of the American imperial government on the one hand, with the humble lamb of God on the other hand, is borderline blasphemous to the Christ-follower. It's one of the most offensive possible comparisons from the point of view of a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven who embraces Jesus' teachings of peace-making, cheek-turning, and enemy-love.

It has been said that if you want to identify what it is that you you idolize above God, ask yourself the following question: "For what ends are you are willing to kill or support the killing of an image-bearer of God?" None of us are without sin, but the American Tract Society has revealed their idol. They have demonstrated that political "freedom," which they mistakenly believe is purchased through dropping bombs and firing missiles at people, is worth more than the lives of the innocent victims of American aggression.

Much could be said regarding the unbelievable horror of being a victim of the most powerful empire in human history. Much more could be said regarding the myth of the benevolent American empire, the lies surrounding the war in Afghanistan, and the false picture of God that we show the world when we so vocally support violence.

Yes, this article is direct, to-the-point, and openly critical of the American Tract Society. Why is this necessary? It is not fun to rebuke people with whom I share a common faith. I don't make a habit in my daily life of judging, rebuking and correcting those with whom I disagree. However, when public spokespersons for Jesus so violently misrepresent his message, and so thoroughly distort the picture of God that we are trying to paint for the world, it is unfortunately essential for the prophetic voice of non-violence to counter the violent ideologies that creep into the church and misrepresent Jesus.

The mission of Civics News is to put a spot-light on the crimes of government and to call Christians to "put not their trust in princes," but instead to turn their eyes upon Jesus, who is the perfect representation of a loving God. I beg those at the American Tract Society: reconsider the path you've taken. I ask you in love to turn your eyes back to Jesus and to follow his teachings and his example, since you bear a great responsibility of sharing his gospel of peace and reconciliation with the world.

I also open myself to critique, as I want to receive the light of truth in areas where I am yet in darkness. I am not the judge of another person's heart, but we ought to discern, identify, and speak against false doctrines that paint a misleading picture of God for the world upon which many souls will base their choice of whether or not to follow this God.

So, American Tract Society, let us journey together toward a clearer understanding of Jesus and let us refine our presentation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, which, above all else, is a kingdom of love.

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

Scott Ritsema is the author of The Way, the Truth, and the Sword: A New Christian Civics in an Age of Coercive Power. He holds a M.A. in Social Science and teaches high school Advanced Placement American Government, Civics, and Economics in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The painting in this YouTube clip made me a little ill

Didn't you know that the American founders intended to set up a Christian government? The Constitution actually created a church-state, as this painting portrays--Jesus with Constitution in hand. Devout, evangelical Christians, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (seen in the painting) believed adamantly that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than Christianity, and that we should all have the freedom to exercise our Christianity as we see fit, which means we should worship on Sunday and pledge our allegiance to the government especially when Republicans are ruling.

OK, now if you missed the sarcasm above, be sure to read this, this, this, this, and most importantly, America's founding fathers were not Christians. (And of course, this too...)

As much as I love America's founding principles, even a pure Jeffersonian America doesn't hold a candle to the pure kingdom of God. And worse yet, I can't stand seeing the current American regime legitimized by a Christian veneer as portrayed in this painting:

Facts surrounding attempted plane bombing are raising eyebrows

Why are there strange circumstances associated with every attempted attack? This time, the bomber had no passport and was escorted onto the plane by a man on in a suit who told the airline representative that the Nigerian bomber was actually a Sudanese refugee. What!?

Read Prison Planet's article on the subject here.

It is possible that this man was acting alone. But also, it's a fact that Western governments facilitate terrorist acts, creating or hyping a shadowy enemy in order to justify expansion abroad and a crack-down at home. Regardless of who is behind this latest attempt, we should not look to an increasingly empowered government to save us through the implementation of a heightened police state. Put not your trust in princes. It is obvious who the greater threat to life, liberty and property is. Your own government. Not a lone nut from overseas.

Foreign Aid = Theft and Corruption

Why stealing money from taxpayers to distribute to foreign governments is a bad idea. AFP reports:

Nearly half a billion dollars in tsunami aid for Sri Lanka is unaccounted for and over 600 million dollars has been spent on projects unrelated to the disaster, an anti-corruption watchdog said Saturday.

Berlin-based Transparency International demanded an audit of the money received by the Sri Lankan government to help victims of the Asian tsunami which hit the island on December 26, 2004, killing 31,000 people.

The group's Sri Lankan chapter said the public have a right to know how the aid money was spent as the tropical nation marked the fifth anniversary of the tsunami.

The group alleged that out of 2.2 billion dollars received for relief, 603.4 million dollars was spent on projects unrelated to the disaster.

Another half a billion dollars was missing, the group said.

"There is no precise evidence to explain the missing sum of 471.9 million dollars," the Transparency International statement issued in Colombo added.

An "audit should be done by the government to explain the utilisation of the money received and the challenges faced," the group said.

An government official declined comment Saturday on the allegations but Colombo has consistently rejected such accusations in the past.

An initial government audit in 2005 found that less than 13 percent of the aid had been spent, but there has been no formal examination since, Transparency International said.

It's a good thing the U.S. Government doesn't do things like that corrupt Sri Lankan government does! Oh... Well, I guess whatever America does it does BIG!

Peace on Earth

I wish you all a merry Christmas with this link. It's a story about soldiers who, on Christmas Day--perhaps as they were dwelling on peace and the insanity of what they were being asked to do--decided to boycott war. Pretty cool spontaneous exercise in peace-making. If only the bomb could permanently be replaced with the soccer ball.

Ron Paul on Health Care and Foreign Policy

In the clip below Ron Paul points out the fact that we already have a health care system that is 60% government. The current debate is over what that percentage will rise to. We are not going to get pure socialized medicine (...yet), but the people will have more of their property stolen under the expansion of violent** health care. It's worth noting that the American people smell a rat in this health care bill. Steve Watson reports on a recent poll gauging Americans' views on government health care:

In a key question, the survey also asked if an increased government role in the health care system would “lead to more corruption? Less corruption? Or will it make no difference?”

A vast majority of 62% said it would be the cause of “more corruption”, only 14% said “less corruption”, with 21% believing it would “make no difference.”

Most of the clip below is Ron Paul talking about foreign policy extensively including the killing of innocent civilians in Yemen. Give it a listen:



--------------------------------------------
**Government is violence. It operates on the principle of coercive force. See this excerpt from Chapter 3 of The Way, the Truth and the Sword, entitled, "Is there such thing as a Christian government?"

Cost to Fight Each Al Qaeda Member in Afghanistan Per Year: $300 Million

Cost to Fight Each Al Qaeda Member in Afghanistan Per Year: $300 Million
cryptogon.com - Wednesday, Dec 23rd, 2009

War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler

Via: ABC News:

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama’s description Tuesday of the al Qaeda “cancer” in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al Qaeda presence in his speech at West Point, when he said, “al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.”

A spokesperson at the White House’s National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said
he could not comment on intelligence matters.

I'm with the atheists--reject a God that you'd need to "worry" about

Like Atheists have done, I've rejected a certain picture of God. Tragically, they've been given the impression from God's supposed representatives that God is not love, and thus they have (wisely) rejected this God. Perhaps those Christians who support wars of aggression and torture do so because they believe in a God who hates his enemies and who wants people to be tortured throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity in hell. And perhaps that's why people reject God. As Brad Cole states, we've painted a picture of a God who is a "monster," and atheists have rightly rejected this God. A God that isn't trustworthy and loving, but instead makes us worry about his intentions, is not a God worth pursuing.

Read the entirety of Cole's post at God's Character.com, entitled, "There's Probably No God," which is about billboards being put up in New York to advance atheism. I'd love to hear from you on how you think we can best show people a God of love instead of a monster. (Be sure to see his links on the nature of hell; I think we've gotten that doctrine wrong.)

Forgiveness and love of our enemies is THE non-negotiable Christian teaching

Thanks to Brad Cole who runs God's Character.com, which is currently my favorite website on the internet, for giving me the heads up on this clip:

Spy Drones To Enforce CO2 Regulations

Spy Drones To Enforce CO2 Regulations
European Union will act as “global warming policeman” to mandate compliance

Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Monday, December 21, 2009



President Barack Obama has said that spy drones will be used to enforce CO2 emission regulations, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has outlined plans for the European Union to police compliance with carbon-cutting targets.

The final Copenhagen Accord included the provision that a global “governance structure” would be set up to control taxes on CO2 emissions and this is already starting to take shape after Gordon Brown announced that he is drawing up plans with French President Sarkozy for the EU to become a global warming policeman.

“Mr Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy now are working proposals for a “European monitoring organisation” that will oversee every country’s actions on emissions,” reports the Telegraph.

“I will work with President Sarkozy for a European organisation that will monitor the transparency that is being achieved not just in Europe and our own countries, but in every country around the world,” said Brown, adding, “I think people deserve for there to be international reporting at the highest standards of what is being done.”

In addition, President Barack Obama said that satellite technology would be used to check if countries like China are living up to their promises to cut CO2, a move that has been termed “eco-spying”. New advancements allow drones to monitor greenhouse gas emissions over a certain geographical area.

“We can actually monitor what takes place through satellite imagery and so forth, so I think we are going to have a pretty good idea of what people are doing,” said Obama.

“It is hoped that the use of satellite imagery will increase pressure on every country to do their part once targets are eventually in place,” according to the Telegraph.

While this will inevitably pose highly problematic geopolitical flash points in the short term, specifically with regard to U.S. satellites snooping on China, one can only imagine the long term implications of such measures on an individual level.

Governments are already announcing laws to track and trace every mile we travel via black boxes in our cars.

In future, is every business going to be assigned its own individual spy drone to monitor and report on its CO2 emissions?

In a wider sense, this is all geared towards further crushing any notion of border integrity or national sovereignty in pursuit of a global government authority to rule over all countries, zealously enforcing draconian CO2 reduction targets that will bankrupt richer countries while completely devastating the third world, leading to untold poverty and millions more deaths as a result of skyrocketing food prices.

Do we believe in life and freedom of conscience or not?

For those who look to Christian leaders to understand what Jesus is like, please look away. Most of what masquerades as "Christian" is far from being what Jesus envisioned.

Take the case of two "Christian" initiatives currently grabbing headlines.

"Christian Leaders United for a Nuclear Free Iran" (CLNFI) calls for economic sanctions against the people of Iran, while at the same time, another initiative, the "Manhattan Declaration," advicates for the sanctity of life and for liberty of conscience.

Does anybody notice a contradiction between the two initiatives? Can a rational person support 1) economic sanctions, and 2) life and liberty ... at the same time?

Consider the fact that economic sanctions on Iraq put to death 1.5 million people during the 1990s. How can we claim to be supporters of the sanctity of life while supporting murderous sanctions?

Also, economic sanctions strip people of their property rights--the freedom to buy and sell. How can we claim to support liberty through the Manhattan Declaration, while at the same time prohibiting an individual's free use of property. After all, every legitimate freedom is rooted in property ownership (e.g. I have freedom of speech and freedom of religion because I own my mind and my mouth).

To the world: Please do not blame Jesus for that which Christians do in his name.

God is love. If you believe in love, peace, grace, mercy, patience, kindness, and a life devoted to the betterment of others, then you love Jesus and true Christianity.

(See my previous post on the subject of sanctions on Iran: Christians call for impoverishing Persian families)

Person of the Year

Time Magazine's person of the year is an unfortunate reflection of the authoritarian values of the kingdoms of this world.

In the annals of the kingdom of God, the true person of the year is the person who is the most humble and others-centered, the person who most resembles Jesus. The person who best loves those who hate him/her.

But in this world, the person of the year is always a person who exercises power. Charles Burris points out,

The choice of Fed chairman Ben Bernanke as the Time Magazine 2009 Person of the Year is no more aberrational than its choice of Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939), Winston Churchill (1940), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941), Joseph Stalin (1942), George Marshall (1943), Dwight Eisenhower (1944), Harry S Truman (1945), James S. Byrnes (1946), George Marshall (1947), Harry S Truman (1948), or Winston Churchill (1949). Bernanke’s selection needs to be put in the proper historic context. Time Magazine has always worshiped power and those who exercise power.

No Constitutional Authority for Obamacare

Just like the Republicans when they were in charge, the Democrats see no limits on their exercise of power, and they don't care about the supreme law of the land to which they swore an oath. When asked about the Constitution, they say, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Should have been the Time Magazine man of the year

Moving into a new house

Sorry about the lack of posts recently. As you know, moving in is a time-consuming project. Will be back soon!

Scott

Top 10 book list for Christmas includes "The Way, the Truth and the Sword"

My favorite libertarian Christian website on the web (aptly named LibertarianChristians.com--worth visiting regularly!!) put together a fantastic top-10 list of Christmas books for the liberty-loving reader.

I'm honored that Norman Horn, the fine webmaster of LibertarianChristians.com put The Way, the Truth and the Sword on the list (see #9 on his list below).

I've read some, though not all, of the books that Horn lists. I can recommend anything by Ron Paul and Thomas Woods as perfect for the novice reader. And Laurence Vance is my absolute favorite libertarian Christian writer, as he is a compelling voice against war. You can buy my book here or here if you would like a copy (e-book version, here).

I hope you all have a Christ-centered Christmas in support of liberty of conscience! Here's Horn's top ten list. (Also visit his original post to join the conversation in the comments and browse his great website.) LibertarianChristians.com's 10 Ten books for Christmas:

One of the most popular and commented on posts of this past year was my Top 10 Books for Christmas last December. I’m thinking it’s about time for another list, since the Christmas season is upon us and I bet you’re wondering what to get that liberty-loving friend, brother, or spouse. Now, although the title of this post says “Christian Libertarians,” plenty of these books are applicable to libertarians everywhere. Anybody can find something on here to enjoy and learn from. Check out some of these great books and see what you think…

1. End the Fed, by Ron Paul – The Federal Reserve banking system is corrupt and has devastated the world economy, and Ron Paul demonstrates in this great book just how bad it really is. A must-read for our current political situation!

2. Meltdown, by Thomas Woods – Here’s another essential book for you to know well. Tom has not only written a great expose of how the government has crippled the economy but also a great treatise in basic economics. This book even hit the NYT Bestseller list for multiple weeks!

3. The Libertarian Theology of Freedom, by Edmund Opitz – Most LCC readers are already familiar with Opitz since I have been in the process of archiving his essays online, but I want to point out that this book is back in stock again at Amazon (but probably not for long). Read my review of this book for more information. But for that matter, any book by Ed Opitz is well worth having on your bookshelf.

4. Christianity and War, by Laurence Vance – I’m going to keep pushing this book until every Christian I know is reading it. Laurence’s work is incredible and absolutely essential for getting the church at large to realize war is NOT the answer. (Don’t forget that you can get the audiobook exclusively from LCC!)

5. Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman – Does American “culture” sometimes make you wonder what on earth happened here? Neil Postman clarifies the problems we face on a regular basis in this classic book. Check out my book review here at LCC.

6. The Ethics of Money Production, by Guido Hulsmann – Guido is definitely one of my favorite scholars in the Austrian School, and this book is just one more reason why. His thesis is simple: money creation must occur on the free market, neither inhibited nor controlled by government, in order to be created in an ethical manner. Pretty great topic, eh? (By the way, you can get this book at Amazon, but it’s cheaper via the Mises Institute online store.)

7. The Cult of the Presidency, by Gene Healy – I met Gene for the first time this past October at the Students for Liberty Texas Conference, and am now an even greater admirer of his intellect and tenacity to hit the establishment hard. This book shows just how ridiculous statolatry has become, especially in the last eight years with Bush. Now, I think he could write a second book just about Obama. (Also, the paperback version runs a couple bucks cheaper if it matters to you.)

8. Faith and Liberty, by Alejandro Chafuen – I was really excited to find this book, which covers the history of the Late Scholastic thinkers and their writings on private property, trade, money, and the State – which were all written from theological perspective.

9. The Way, the Truth, and the Sword, by Scott Ritsema – You can get Scott’s great book either as an eBook or through Lulu.com. Either way, you’re in for a treat, as Scott has written a wonderful little book encouraging the church at large to reject the State and get back to the true savior, Jesus Christ. Scott is the webmaster at Civics News.

10. An Amazon Kindle filled with the Mises library and Christian Classics – This may be #10, but it’s probably #1 in my list. You know, almost every book the Mises Institute publishes (and much more) is available to download for free as a PDF on their website. You could easily fill a flash drive with liberty PDF’s from the Mises Library and tons of classic theological texts from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and Project Gutenberg. Now THAT would be a gift long remembered! (Hey Mom, hint hint?)

How the mainstream media are controlled

Here's a great analysis by Washington's Blog, which demonstrates (with links and sources that will keep you busy for a while if you doubt his claims) that to a great extent the mainstream media is controlled, particularly when it comes to the subject of war. Give it a read.

Also, check out the Media/Propaganda archive below. It's a good one.

Afghanistan is the good, moral war, right?

Little Known Facts About Afghanistan and Bin Laden
Washington’s Blog - Sunday, Dec 6th, 2009

Evidence which has come out over the last couple of years makes it clear that top Bush administration officials knew that Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and knew that Saddam had no connection with 9/11.

It is now reasonably obvious that the Bush administration was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam, and – in the words of the Downing Street Memo – “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.

Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change long before 9/11 (one month after Bush took office).

Saddam’s Offer

Saddam allegedly offered to let weapons inspectors in the country and to hold new elections:

In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq’s Ba’athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks.

Moreover, Saddam allegedly offered to leave Iraq:

“Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion)”.

“The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President’s Texas ranch.”

“The White House refused to comment on the report last night. But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.”

According to the tapes, Bush told Aznar that whether Saddam was still in Iraq or not, “We’ll be in Baghdad by the end of March.” See also this and this.

Afghanistan Is Different

But Afghanistan is much different.

As President Obama said Tuesday night as justification for the surge in troops in Afghanistan:

We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban”, who refused to turn over Osama bin Laden.

Is that true?

The Taliban Offer

On October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.
Specifically, as the Guardian writes:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty” …

Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

“If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved” and the bombing campaign stopped, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”, Mr Kabir added.

However, as the Guardian subsequently points out:

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan’s military leadership said.

And yet, as with Saddam, the U.S. turned down the offer and instead prosecuted war.

Little-Known Facts About Afghanistan and Bin Laden

The government apparently planned the Afghanistan war before 9/11 (see this and this).

And the government apparently could have killed Bin Laden in 2001 and AGAIN in 2007, but failed to do so.

In fact, starting right after 9/11 — at the latest — the goal has always been to create “regime change” and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon and other countries. As American historian, investigative journalist and policy analyst Gareth Porter writes in the Asia Times:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.

Feith’s book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states…

***

General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].

***

When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, “All of them.”

***

The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to “disrupt, damage or destroy” their military capacities – not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Indeed, the goal seems to have more to do with being a superpower (i.e. an empire) than stopping terrorism.

As Porter writes:

After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by al-Qaeda
operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden’s sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US military leaders “refused to consider it”, according to a 2004 account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay for being a superpower”.

And recall that former U.S. National Security Adviser (and top foreign policy advisor) Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”.

Cynics argue that America is just the latest in a long string of empires trying to control the “crossroads” between East and West.

And people such as the former UK ambassador to Afghanistan argue that there are even uglier reasons for America’s involvement in Afghanistan.

This essay does not address such questions. All I’m asking is whether the U.S. refusal to accept the Taliban’s offer to hand over Bin Laden should be viewed as similar to its refusal to accept Saddam’s offer to go into exile for $1 billion dollars. In other words, we should ask whether the U.S. was hell-bent on going to war against Afghanistan and Saddam, without – contrary to official statements – really caring about the bad guys.

Looking Ahead

These questions are not just stale, historical questions.

The U.S. military is currently pursuing a strategy in Afghanistan that – according to some – will decrease national security and spend our nation’s blood and treasure, all for the sake of killing only 100 Al Qaeda fighters in the entire country, while we could spend much less to capture or kill those bad guys.

Christians: Let's Disavow Nationalism and Cease Praying to the God of War

A Response to Baptist Spokesman's Latest Comments Supporting American Militarism

December 3, 2009
Scott Ritsema
Civics News



Following Obama’s recently announced plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, stated the following:

“First, I’m nervous that the president has given our generals on the ground less than they’ve requested as the resources they believe necessary to finish the job of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and, jointly with Pakistan, the Taliban in that terribly important country as well.”

“Second, I am of course hopeful that the president’s plan will work. If anyone can make it work, it is our wonderful military with its tens of thousands of dedicated patriots and citizens serving voluntarily to defend their country in difficult and dangerous places. I would encourage all Americans to pray for our commander in chief and for all of those who serve in our nation’s armed forces as they seek to defend our freedom in a dangerous and difficult world. We should also remember to pray for the families they leave behind and the significant sacrifices they make for our nation’s freedom as well.”

I offer my critique of his statements not to beat him up, but so that those who have the impression of Christianity as a violent religion can be given the opportunity to see another point of view—one that is faithful to Jesus’ teachings about non-violence and citizenship in the kingdom of heaven, which is a kingdom ruled by the supreme ethic of love.

Whenever a Christian speaks, he is representing Jesus and the body of Christ (the church). This is all the more true if said Christian is speaking in an official capacity as a church leader, as in the example here of statements made by this Baptist spokesman. Since a Christian, by default, speaks on behalf of Christianity/Christ/the church, then when he uses adjectives such as “us” and “we,” he is assumed to be talking about the church and Christ. In the present example, Mr. Land is speaking on behalf of the “ethics” and the “religious liberty” of the Christian church, and so when he says “us” and “we,” it is assumed that he is (or at least ought to be) speaking of his community—the Southern Baptist Church or Christianity more broadly.

My first point of critique relates to his use of the terms “us” and “we.” It appears that the people-group from which he derives identity and community is unfortunately not the church. Nor is it the second best group identity—the human race. Rather, Mr. Land, whom I love as a child of God and a brother, seems to be captive to the tribal identity of nationalism. Notice that each time he says “us” and “we” in the comments above, it is in reference to America, and more specifically, the American military. He refers to “our generals,” “our wonderful military,” “our commander in chief,” and he calls on Americans to pray (to the god of war?) for military success. His language is perplexing to the New Testament Christian who believes that we are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is not to say that we should renounce citizenship in nations, but where in the New Testament are Christians called to identify so prominently with the military force of a worldly kingdom? Shouldn’t our group identity with 1) the community of Christ-followers, and 2) the common humanity of every image-bearer of God far supersede our identity in a tribal nationalistic community? This appears to be the nationalistic civic religion rearing its ugly head. [See Chapter 7 in The Way, the Truth and the Sword for more on this subject.]

The second point of critique that I would offer Mr. Land relates to the role of Christians in the world. Our central calling is the Great Commission, which is to show and to tell the world about the love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ. Our job is to spread the good news or “gospel” about what God is like. Given this fact, it is puzzling that Mr. Land considers “[finishing] the job of defeating the Taliban” to be a Christian cause worthy of our prayer and support. Mr. Land is so enthusiastic about killing these “enemies” (and so apparently accepting of the inevitable “collateral damage” of innocent lives) that he is even concerned that warrior Obama is not being aggressive enough! To Mr. Land, the role of Christians in the world is apparently not primarily to spread the gospel, but instead to defeat the enemies of the American empire. He is willing to even fore-go the opportunity to reach with the gospel those who will die in the escalated war in order to achieve his aim of military conquest. No doubt, he likely has good (though misguided) motives in seeking military victory; but, when such victory is placed ahead of the advancement of the gospel, then we have forgotten what our job is as Christians. We Christians must “finish the job” of loving our enemies to heaven, not “finish the job” of killing the enemies of the American military. If he is speaking for an ethics committee of a church denomination, then no doubt, he is familiar with New Testament ethics, which require that Christians love our enemies. Let’s pray that he recapture the vision of pure Christ-like love that Jesus taught us.

A third critique I should mention briefly is that there is a blatantly idolatrous statement in his comments. I hope this was an accident on his part, but he states that “if any one can make [the president’s plan] work, it’s our wonderful military…” It seems that his highest hopes are set upon the supreme power of the U.S. military. Where the Psalmist says “put not your trust in princes,” the way of this world is: “if anyone can, it’s our military.” That is very sad.

A forth critique relates to Mr. Land’s claim that in Afghanistan “our” troops are “defending our freedom.” In reality, there are only one hundred al Qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan, and the Taliban forces want to rule Afghanistan, not America. Afghanis are not threatening to nor are they able to invade the U.S., take over our government, and take our freedom away. In contrast to this, I would think that a spokesman for the “religious liberty” department would be a lot more threatened by the U.S. Government as a danger to our religious liberties than Afghanis. Instead, Mr. Land identifies with (see critique #1 above) the very institution that poses the greatest threat to freedom of conscience in America. Instead of defending our religious liberties, the military in Afghanistan is endangering them, because it is stirring up hatred of the United States, and it is legitimizing the American imperial system that robs Americans of property and liberty on a daily basis, and which stands ready to enforce martial law domestically at any moment.

A final critique I have is that he calls on us to pray only for the Americans involved in this war. This betrays his nationalistic worldview. This is perhaps the saddest oversight of Mr. Land’s comments. His one-sided prayer dehumanizes the very people we are trying to reach with the gospel. Mark Twain once penned a revealing nationalistic “war prayer” that is relevant to the matter of praying for the success for your nation’s military:

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.”

I call on Christians to pray the following:

Pray that the military be unsuccessful in killing “our” enemies; but that instead these enemies will somehow come into contact with and experience the love of Jesus, and that their hearts will be changed.

Pray that especially the families of those millions who have been completely innocent victims of America’s wars would be comforted by the knowledge that those responsible for these evils are not from God, and pray that survivors, refugees, and potential victims would be protected and their needs cared for by angels and servants of God.

Pray that America's soldiers would be kept safe as well, and that they would have Jesus as their guide through the difficult moral dilemma that faces Christians in a nationalistic and militaristic world.

Pray that the leaders of the most powerful empire in human history will also come to know Jesus Christ, and that the once humble nation of the United States, which was founded on the relatively good principles of limited government and individual liberty, would be restored.

Pray that all Americans who worship at the altar of the god of war, and who love the idol of nationalism, will find the God of love incarnated in the person of Jesus.

Pray that violent ideologies on both sides of every conflict would give way to the grace and peace of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.

Pray that those of us who have received the light and truth in the Kingdom Way of Jesus would not boast about our knowledge, and that we would become aware of the idols in our own hearts; that we would not be captive to pride or a sense of spiritual superiority.

Pray that there would be a revival of enemy-love within the Christian church and that we would rend ourselves from the beast and throw ourselves into the loving arms of Jesus, who grieves to see his beloved ones captive to the empire of lies.

And in all of this, we are praying that God’s name be hallowed—that people in all nations will not confuse the American imperial “Christianity” with the true faith of Jesus Christ, and that the name of God will thus be restored in the world. And last of all, in all of this we pray that the will of God and the kingdom of God be done on earth as it is in heaven. In other words, we pray for an overwhelming victory of love. God is love. And so the burning desire of the Christ-follower is for the world to see the love of God manifested in every person.

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

Scott Ritsema is the author of The Way, the Truth, and the Sword: A New Christian Civics in an Age of Coercive Power. He holds a M.A. in Social Science and teaches high school Advanced Placement American Government, Civics, and Economics in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Maddow on Bush...I mean Obama...war escalation

Rachel Maddow who first exposed Obama's Bush-like detention policy, has now come out strongly against murder in the form of Obama's Afghanistan escalation, arguing persuasively that Obama's plan is just another form of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war (a clear and obvious evil). I applaud her for showing on the graph how this "Peace Prize" imperialist has created a wider war than Bush did and at an even faster rate than Bush. How in the world does Obama have a reputation of anything less than being Bush on steroids? Also, good job, Rachel, for opposing the secret CIA and Predator Drone war on Pakistan that routinely and knowingly kills innocents. (Isn't it sad that the U.S. has become a "predator" nation?)

UPDATE 12/11/09: In case anybody was confused, the posting of this clip and the affirmation of the truth of what she says should not be interpreted to be an endorsement of everything that Maddow stands for.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Americans skeptical of scientists and don't believe there's a "consensus"

Majority Of Americans Say Scientists Have Faked Global Warming Data
Rasmussen Reports - Thursday, December 3, 2009

Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

While many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.

But just in the last few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed to reject any such disagreement in a response to a question about global warming, “I don’t think … [global warming] is quite, frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

Fed Chairman on the defensive

It's amazing that Ben Bernanke has to write an Op Ed in the Washington Post to answer to Ron Paul and the uprising of the American people who don't want a secret pseudo-governmental bank to rob them through the process of inflation of the money supply and endless bailouts. Yes, the head of the Fed devoted ink in the Washington Post to oppose Ron Paul! This never would have happened just three years ago.

Jesse Ventura on Afghanistan and 9/11 Truth

I like his solution to end the wars. 1) Pass a tax that requires us to actually pay for them. 2) Pass a draft. 3) Pass a law requiring every Congressman to designate a member of his/her family to serve in the war.

Taxes and conscription are bad, but I can't disagree that his prescription is a sure-fire way to bring an end to the wars!

Humanity is the enemy: Environmentalist religion regarded as "the only compelling value-based narrative available"

Shocking UN Document Divulges Climate Cult Brainwashing
Kids coerced into performing global warming song as strategy document reveals plan to greenwash young minds by turning environmentalism into gaia religion



Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Monday, November 30, 2009

With the reverberations of climategate still echoing, it has now emerged that children are being greenwashed in public schools by being forced to sing climate cult ditties and hate their parents as part of a United Nations propaganda program aimed at capturing young minds, as the UN itself officially acknowledges the global warming mantra as a new religion.

A shocking new UN strategy document also reveals how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their program represents.

“When did global warming turn into a forced religion?,” asks the New York Post’s Andrea Peyser as she tells the story of how her daughter came home from school singing the words ” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . “.

“All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents. Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees,” writes Peyser.

That’s right, in the spirit of the Club of Rome’s 1991 resolution to make humanity the enemy in creating the contrived threat of environmental armageddon, children have been turned against their own parents in the service of a new gaia religion.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote in a report entitled “The First Global Revolution”.

“Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where “experts” from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat.,” says Peyser.

A newly uncovered document sheds some light on the genesis of how such brainwashing found its way into our schools.

A strategy paper for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog, reveals how the global elite in charge of the green takeover resolved that, “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a Fox News report.

This approach follows a similar tack to the new methods adopted by Al Gore, who in his recent presentations has delivered his message as a kind of religious sermon, acknowledging, “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”

The UN planning paper outlines a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”

Participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen, Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

A core element of the program includes, “an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to “children and youth”.

“Civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns,” states the document.

The document discusses recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.

As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP “should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments.”

This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact.

The goals enshrined in the document, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Fox News’ George Russell.

This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda.