Good thing they're keeping us safe from these people

National Security Demands Afghanistan Roadblocks and Checkpoints
Lew Rockwell.com Blog - Michael S. Rozeff July 28, 2010 06:31 AM

The Afghanistan Papers will take time to read and process. I took 5 minutes to scan a tiny sample in one category involving checkpoints. The picture I got is of U.S. forces attempting to discover an enemy and/or prevent infiltration by occupying the country via checkpoints and reconnaissance flights. In incident after incident, Afghanis fail to stop at checkpoints or attempt to speed through them (these reports say). This leads the U.S. soldiers to open fire. After killing or wounding Afghanis, the soldiers find no arms, no bombs, no suicide attacks, and no improvised explosive devices (IED). On one recon flight, two men were seen doing something near a road. This led to a pursuit in which the pilot destroyed their motorcycle. Afterwards, no IED was found near the road. [...]

Fallujah fallout worse than Hiroshima

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle

Patrick Cockburn - The London Independent - July 24, 2010



Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.

In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.

He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside."

The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.

Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of standing in the community to allay suspicions.

The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".

Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.

Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.

The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital.


Related Civics News Posts:
Film: BEYOND TREASON...what are they doing to our troops? (...and to us!?)
Israel Using Depleted Uranium Against Gaza Victims
Israel using White Phosphorus on Palestinians

Good News: More repentance from war

Joseph Farah, founder of the conservative political news website, WorldNetDaily.com has repented of his warmongering. Regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he states, “I admit I was a supporter of both of these campaigns. I was obviously wrong.” While I don't endorse everything he says in his article, I want to affirm his humble change of mind.

See Will Grigg's comments on Farah's statement.

Related posts:
The Bravest of Soldiers Repent: "I realized I was the terrorist"
Inspiring Repentance: 2 soldiers apologize for wikileaks incident and Iraq war
Soldiers ordered to slaughter civilians
Support these brave soldiers who are repenting and speaking out against evil
More former Bush people repenting--Ridge: We were wrong to torture

Actually...you don't have freedom from religious political power after all

What would happen if Christianity gained total power again? No doubt, there have been great efforts by an alliance of Protestants and Catholics during my lifetime (since 1980) to do just that.

Perhaps a short history lesson would be helpful. As I wrote about in, The Way, the Truth and the Sword, during the early centuries of Christianity, followers of Christ followed Christ into martyrdom, as they were killed for a faith and a lifestyle that was hated by the state and Satan's kingdom. Beginning in the 300s, A.D., though, something changed. Christianity gained power and became the state...except one thing...by doing so, ceased to be Christianity. Satan was still in charge of the sword, and all he did was put on sheep's skin, claiming to be Christian.

So, for the entirety of the Middle Ages, Christianity ruled the world with violent coercive force. Liberty of conscience was not permitted. Those who disagreed with the church were tortured and burned to death by this lamb in sheep's clothing. Sadly, during these centuries in Christian history Christians sent the wrong message about God to the world. Where Jesus shows love, kindness, servitude, and self-sacrifice, the Christian power dominated with power, coercion, violence, and intolerance.

This next statement is not meant to criticize individuals who belong to a certain church, but the church that ruled during these centuries was the great Roman power. The Roman Catholic Church exercised the political power over greater Europe, displacing the Roman Empire. For many centuries, then, Christianity ruled the world and did not permit freedom of religion.

When America was founded, however, the First Amendment to the Constitution stated that the state should not support one religion over another. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that we may exercise our religious freedom as we see fit, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the merging of church and state. The founding fathers deliberately sought to prevent in America the tragedies that attended the history of Europe where freedom of religion was not permitted.

The essence of the First Amendment is that free people not only have the freedom to exercise their religion as they see fit, but they also have the freedom to not have religion forced upon them by the state or a church-state power. In other words, free people not only have freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. By "freedom from religion" we mean freedom from the coercive power of a religious institution.

Many say that Rome has changed. Many say that if only the religious right (a political alliance between Protestants and Catholics) could take power, then they would enforce a moral and religious order that would improve society. They would not be enforcing religion, the argument goes, they would only be enforcing morals.

All of the above commentary is meant to lead up to this YouTube clip, which I stumbled upon this morning. Notice that, as far as Rome is concerned, liberty of conscience is STILL illegitimate. They state explicitly that we do NOT have freedom from religion in the libertarian sense. You do NOT have freedom from a religio-political power enforcing its will upon you.

I've heard from many Protestants that "Rome has changed," and that it's safe to enter into a political alliance with them to take back the power of the sword. Be forewarned: if Christianity were to again gain power, don't expect it to be any prettier than it was last time in the Middle Ages.

Sadly, most Protestants in the political world would make this exact same argument as you will see in this clip, sacrificing liberty of conscience and a Christ-like presence in the world on the altar of power.

Prayers for Glenn Beck

While Beck and I have our differences, I want to affirm his humanity and recognize that he is a child of God whom I am privileged to respect and love simply because he is a human being. I pray today that he will not go blind, as his doctor has told him might be the case. I pray also that he will have improved spiritual eyesight, so that he can see how loving his Creator is, and that by beholding a God of love with clear sight, he will want to love his Muslim neighbors as himself. I pray the same for my imperfect spiritual eyesight, that I will more clearly focus on and grasp the love of God, and that by beholding his gloriously kind character, I might be transformed into a more loving person.

I encourage my readers to pray for Glenn Beck and the many people suffering from eye diseases physically and spiritually today.

Beck caught lying about his Lincoln research

Glenn Beck is admired by many American conservatives and even libertarians. Countless Christians turn on his program each evening to hear political commentary that they think they can trust. Beck is a professional actor, a true showman who can capture an audience with ease. He has eclipsed Rush Limbaugh as the most influential figure on the right.

I agree with and support most of what he talks about while Democrats are in power. Beck was a pure neo-con during the Bush Administration (I listened to his radio show for years), and since then, is singing the tune of a libertarian constitutionalist Ron Paul Republican, even discussing issues once considered conspiracy theory and relegated to midnight talk radio.

However, I have warned readers again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again to keep Beck at arms length! He is a neo-con in libertarian dress.

Tom DiLorenzo explains the latest reason to take what Glenn Beck says with a grain of salt. First, he has been caught being deliberately dishonest. Secondly, in his admiration of arguably the worst president in U.S. History, Beck has once again revealed his neo-con colors. Read the whole article by DiLorenzo, but this part especially reveals Beck's dishonesty:

Despite his admirable performances discussing the founding fathers, socialism, progressivism, and other topics, Glenn Beck has been absolutely awful and sometimes untruthful when discussing Lincoln and his legacy. During one show he claimed to have read the actual original copy of The Confederate Constitution. I assume he made this assertion to show that he must really be quite the expert on the document. I didn’t believe him when he said this, and his next sentence proved to me that he did not read the document. The next sentence was the statement that the formal title of the document was "The Slaveholders’ Constitution . . ." Anyone can look the document up at Yale University’s online Avalon Project, which warehouses all the American founding documents, commentaries, and more, to see for yourself that Beck was wrong about this.

Beck’s next false statement was that "I read it" (the Confederate Constitution) and "it wasn’t about states’ rights, it was all about slavery." Read it yourself online. It is a virtual carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution, with a few exceptions: The Confederate president had a line-item veto; served for one six-year term; protectionist tariffs are outlawed; government subsidies for corporations are outlawed; and the "General Welfare Clause" of the U.S. Constitution was deleted.

The act of secession was the very essence of states’ rights, contrary to Beck’s proclamation, for the basic assumption was that the states were sovereign. They delegated certain defined powers to the central government for their own mutual benefit, but all other powers remained in the hands of the people and the states, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. As sovereigns, they had a right to secede for whatever reason. If a state needed the permission of others to secede, as Lincoln argued, then it was not really sovereign.

The U.S. Constitution adopted a federal, not a national system of government. That is another way of saying a states’ rights system of government. The Confederate Constitution was nearly identical.

To Christians and people of good conscience, I beg of you: put not your trust in Beck. We are not to look to a political talking head to discover historical and political truth. What we behold and admire, we will become. Be careful who you are admiring.

12-year-old girl forcibly given a virtual total strip-search

Where are Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, and the other avowed defenders of Christian virtue and family values when you need them!?

The St. Petersburg Times reports on a 12-year-old girl who was forced to stand in front of a naked body scanner without her parents' permission:

There's been lots of talk lately about body scanners — the new airport security tool that allows screeners to see through clothes. People are concerned about privacy, delayed flights, health effects.

Now there's another concern. What about kids? Do they have to go through this, too? And what are parents' rights?

What is fascinating about this article is that it assumes that it's fine and dandy for adults to bare all in front of a creepy TSA agent. But beyond that, the intrusion of the state has reached a new level. This is intolerable. And to my knowledge, the Christian right is silent on this; perhaps they wedded themselves to police state power under Bush, and now are inextricably tied to "security" in the name of "anit-terrorism." After all, if we need to show our kids naked to get the terrorists, then I guess that's just the price we have to pay. (Please correct me if a conservative family group has spoken out against this; I want to be wrong!)

Instead of focusing on the family, the religious right (through their silence on this matter) is allowing the state to focus on our families in intimate and inappropriate detail. It is not an exaggeration to say that these scanners reveal a nude image--there's a reason why I won't post the images along with my comments on the scanners.

Previous Reports on the naked body scanners:

--Give to Caesar your naked body?
--More naked body scanners that would not have stopped underwear bomber
--Your naked body
--Remember that obscene scene from Airplane where the security guys see naked in their X-ray screen?
--Your naked body is the business of the state
--Imagine if they made us all stand naked at the air port! ...Oh

60 percent of Americans put not their trust in princes

The mission of Civics News is to encourage Christians and people of conscience to not put their trust in the state, but rather, to look to Jesus. To look away from the kingdoms of this world, seeking instead the Kingdom of God.

Having said that, the following headline comes as great news! "Majority of Americans Lack Faith in Obama: Poll." Nearly 60 percent of Americans do not have faith in Obama. That is good news.

Now it is the job of Christians to show people what the real Good News is--that God is trustworthy, and that he is not the kind of God that Christians have made him out to be.

Ron Paul, Glenn Beck on the New World Order

Doesn't Ron Paul know that the New World Order (global government) doesn't exist and that only paranoid conspiracy theorists believe that powerful people seek to advance their interests by consolidating financial and political power globally?



Charles Burris explains here the humorous fact that academia has been teaching its pupils for decades that conspiracies don't exist while simultaneously indoctrinating them into the new world order philosophy. It's amazing that it doesn't dawn on more students that the very world order whose existence is denied by academia is being pushed by academia!

Republican leaders defend Obama's, Pelosi's war

Except Ron Paul, of course.

Worshipping God, not the Government on the 4th of July

CIVICS NEWS Comment: I am grateful to be a part of a church that spurns idolatry of the nation as a part of worship services. I was blessed to be able to make a couple comments from the front of church this past Sabbath, complimenting church leaders for avoiding the militaristic/nationalistic/idolatrous pitfalls so common to churches in America.

Fourth of July Sunday
Lew Rockwell.com Blog - Bill Anderson - July 4, 2010 04:27 PM

We usually are at my wife’s parents’ place around July 4, and that means that when we go to church in that town, we generally are going to get a dose of “religious patriotism.” However, the service where we went today pretty much confirmed my worst fears.

No, there was not a color guard, nor Air Force jets flying over a cross, but nonetheless it was bad. We sang the usual “patriotic” hymns, and the prelude was “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” and you have to remember that the area where the church is located was devastated during the War Between the States by Sherman’s army.

However, the “sermon” was positively the worst sermon I ever had heard, as it celebrated the “liberation of Iraq” and other American wars, as well as blaming the “left” for all of our problems. The pastor received a standing ovation when it was over. Thank goodness, my children and my wife also were thoroughly disgusted by this display of idolatry.

Thomas Woods on state nullification of federal tyranny

Typical mainstream media zombie (in the sense that they're not allowed to think for themselves) interviews Thomas Woods. Woods' latest book, Nullification, advances the Jeffersonian concept of states' rights. Members of the establishment, though, are conditioned to believe that anybody who supports returning 10th Amendment powers to the states and the people where they rightly belong is a Confederate slave-owning racist. Woods explains the truth:



Here is what I wrote on February 14th regarding Chris Matthews' use of the arguments similar to the zombie in the clip above:

Regarding Chris Matthews' critique of the grassroots states' rights movement that Medina is a part of, Matthews and his guests need a bit of a history lesson. They first equate states' rights, nullification and interposition with racism, segregation, Jim Crow, and slavery. It is true that segregationists and slave-owners claimed states' rights to continue their outrages, but that doesn't make state sovereignty guilty by association. Northern states also "nullified" laws, namely, the federal fugitive slave act, using states' rights for their cause. New England states even considered secession during the War of 1812 out of protest against what they viewed as an unnecessary war. States' rights are a tool that different regions, different ideologies, and different partisan interests have tapped into throughout history. To say that "state sovereignty = racism" makes as much sense as saying "state soveriegnty = anti-war protest," since New England utilized this method for their cause. If somebody throws a brick through a black man's window, you don't say the brick was racist; just down the road bricks are being used for something positive--the construction of a hospital. States' rights is a constitutional principle that should be used for good.

Also, Matthews and his guests, in opposing Medina's views, state that it's "un-American" to believe in state nullification of federal laws. Do these men know who first articulated the view of nullification? It was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was the champion of state sovereignty and a strict interpretation of the Constitution against the Hamiltonian nationalists who twisted, stretched and bended the Constitution to fit their desired policy ends. It was during the Hamiltonian Adams administration in 1798 that some of the worst federal laws ever were passed: the Alien and Sedition Acts. They outlawed free speech in America. An outrage. The Supreme Court sat idly by. What is a state to do when faced with federal intrusion on the liberties of the people? Well, Jefferson (along with another "anti-American", James Madison) penned the famous Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which was an example state of nullification of federal laws that were unconstitutional.

It's not just Chris Matthews, either. CNN is now labeling Jeffersonian Americans as fringe radical "tenthers" (because they believe in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government). The "tenther" term is meant to be a word association with "truthers" (i.e. 9/11-truther) who are painted in the mainstream media as being crazy kooks.

For Christians or anybody who is interested in the subject of liberty, state sovereignty is an important concept, as state governments can stand in the gap and oppose federal tyranny and oppression. It's not un-American and it's not racist to believe in freedom.

Also, see this: New Hampshire Warns Obama: “Establish Martial Law and We’ll Secede”