The spokesman for American theofascism speaks

By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.Online Journal Contributing WriterJul 1, 2008,
Email this article Printer friendly page
James Dobson has a Ph.D. in child development. He advocates spanking. He was once known as “the Religious Right’s New Kingmaker.” The “king” he helped make was George W. Bush, who tops “the list when American voters pick the worst U.S. President in the last 61 years.”
As a prominent character in the Bush-Rove nightmare, Dobson, according to Brian Elroy McKinley, set "himself up as a religiously-based political dictator bent on getting us to support his personal view of legislated morality.
"And what’s even worse, Dobson goes to great length to use Scripture to support his view, and yet according to Time magazine he doesn’t even have any formal theological training. In short, Dobson, using his position as a radio psychologist, has set himself up as our moral authority and asks us all to blindly follow. [italics added]
His Focus on the Family empire is considerable, although not as powerful as it once was. A mid-September 2007 article from The Denver Channel.com reported, “Focus on the Family is laying off 30 employees and reassigning 15 others, due in part to a drop in projected revenue . . ."
Dobson and his organization have slowly but surely been losing power. Perhaps that’s why the chairman needed to make more outrageous statements to garner public attention and mobilize the sheeple “to blindly follow” and contribute to his cause.
Dobson used his June 24, 2008 radio broadcast to make preposterous claims and attack Barack Obama. The attack was the lead story on CNN.com:
A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a “fruitcake interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution.In comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.“Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?” Obama asked in the speech. “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount? . . . a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application.”
The first and most obvious question is “Why was this the lead story?” As Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out noted in his reaction to the story, “Dobson is not an ordained minister, nor is he a religious scholar.” Moreover, Dobson is notorious for twisting and misrepresenting legitimate research: "In the past two years, at least seven researchers have accused Dobson of manipulating or cherry picking their results to back his anti-gay teachings. Letters and videos documenting the concerns of these respected professors can be viewed at RespectMyResearch.org.
"The first researcher to step forward was New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, PhD. On Sept. 14, 2006 Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson that stated: “I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine . . . What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.”
"The most recent scientist to claim Double-Talk Dobson distorted his work was University of Minnesota’s Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H. In a letter to Dobson, dated April 28, 2008, he wrote, “I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of 'Focus on the Family.’”
"Other leading researchers who have taken issue with Dobson's use of their work include: Dr. Kyle Pruett, Professor of child psychiatry, the Yale University School of Medicine; Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University; Angela Phillips, Professor, Goldsmiths College in London; Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Associate Professor, school of nursing, University of British Columbia; and Dr. Judith Stacy, Professor of Sociology, New York University."
So the question remains: why would mainstream media give Dobson such front-page coverage without qualification? As Mr. Besen said in his follow-up article, "the wonderful 'liberal media' continues to treat this man as if he is a God-fearing grandfather. What disturbs me, is that the one time Dobson was truly exposed as a kook was when he suggested Sponge Bob Square Pants might be gay. This was worthy of laughs, but when some of the brightest minds in the world take Dobson to task for manipulating years of hard work, the media is largely MIA. Isn’t it time the media paint a full and accurate portrait of a man who has had the ear of many presidents? . . . We urge the media to report the facts and allow America to see the real James Dobson."
Dobson’s statements in his broadcast were nothing short of megalomaniacal: “it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture.” It seems Dobson thinks he alone knows THE “correct” interpretation of scripture and, therefore, he and he alone should decide what legislation is acceptable. Does this sound like the ranting of a theofascist dictator to you?
Dobson’s other statements and accusations are thoroughly addressed on a web site sponsored by “a coalition of pastors and other Christians, lead by Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell.” Appropriately, the site is titled JamesDobsonDoesNotSpeakForMe.com. Dobson’s statements are compared, point by point, with what Mr. Obama actually said in his 2006 speech which, by the way, warned against the dangers of America become a theocratic state.
Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners was both astute and eloquent in his reaction to Dobson’s radio broadcast. It was also based on first-hand knowledge. Rev. Wallis was present at the 2006 speech.
Indeed, Sojourners sponsored the event and reported, "The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, “I’m not a reverend. I’m not a minister. I’m not a theologian. I’m not an evangelist. I’m a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development.” Child psychologists don’t insert themselves into partisan politics in the regular way that James Dobson does and has over many years as one of the premier leaders of the Religious Right. He has spoken about how often he talked to Republican leaders – Karl Rove, administration strategists, and even President Bush himself. This year he tried to influence the outcome of the Republican primary by saying he would never vote for John McCain or the Republicans if they nominated him, then reversed himself and said he would vote after all but didn’t say for whom. But why should America care about how a child psychologist votes?
"James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, and his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because the basis for his attack on Obama is the speech the Illinois senator gave at our Sojourners/Call to Renewal event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson’s attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech; Dobson was not."
In a missive dated “June 2008” and titled “Judicial Tyranny and California Lunacy,” Dobson demonstrated once again how he distorts facts, cherry-picks the Bible, relies on scare tactics, name-calling and irrationalities. For someone who claims to be a defender of and believer in the Bible, Dr. Dobson seems completely ignorant of Romans 13:1-2, NIV: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
The duly elected and/or appointed judges -- the judicial arm of the “governing authorities” -- who dared render a decision contrary to his wishes, Dobson calls “imperious courts,” “judicial tyranny,” “powermongers [sic] in black robes,” “judicial tyrants.” It would seem Dobson deserves nothing but condemnation, according to the Bible that is.
Aside from name-calling, in “Judicial Tyranny and California Lunacy” Dobson railed against two rulings by California courts: “The first of these unfortunate decisions was issued by the Los Angeles-based Second District Court of Appeal, which declared it illegal for parents without teaching licenses to home school their own flesh and blood.”
Teachers are professionals and as such they have had extensive training not only in pedagogy but in the subject matter they teach. They’ve had to pass certification examinations and be licensed by professional boards. To be sure, America’s public education system has its problems, but how many home-schooling parents have pedagogical training plus academic training and expertise in ALL the various subjects they must teach? Dobson favors home-schooling not because it aids in a child’s social, emotional and intellectual development, but because it affords a means for some to indoctrinate children into the “biblical worldview,” which includes such “facts” as the earth is about 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were real people, and dinosaurs played with human children in Eden. This clip from Jesus Camp makes the point, as does this response to it.
Dobson’s use of “their own flesh and blood” is a pretentious emotional appeal that excludes adopted children. Apparently he has little time and little concern for them. But he did have time to snipe at the judges of the Second District Court of Appeal: “They might not even be parents, or if they are, who knows how effectively they did the job when their children were young.” Such a statement is not only inappropriate, it shows how very small Dobson really is.
Not surprisingly, aside from again ignoring the Biblical directive in Romans 13:1-2 and attacking the judicial arm of the “governing authorities,” Dobson’s second subject was one of his favorites: advocacy of legal discrimination and bigotry. "The second decision handed down from on high a few weeks ago was even more egregious. The California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4 to 3, overturned an electoral decision supported by 4,618,673 voters in the year 2000. It concerned Proposition 22, which defined marriage exclusively as being between one man and one woman. . . . The Court sniffed, 'Not so fast, common people. We hold the trump card and you lose.'”
True, Proposition 22 -- like 1964’s Proposition 14 that allowed real estate agents and landlords in California to reject home buyers or tenants of their choice, even if their decision was based on racial discrimination -- was passed by popular vote, but both were declared unconstitutional by due process of law. It’s doubtful a Proposition 14 would ever be proposed today. Times and attitudes have changed in relation to many social issues. Dobson, however, remains sequestered in the past.
Attitudes toward gay people and their right to civil equality have also changed significantly since 2000. More and more people -- including a considerable number of evangelical Christians -- have grown weary of Christiantist leaders’ vituperative attacks on gay and lesbian Americans and their obsessive ranting about gay marriage, while ignoring virtually all other social concerns.
Over ninety percent of Fortune 500 companies now have anti-discrimination policies that protect gays. More and more companies, colleges and universities, states and municipalities are offering same-sex domestic partner benefits, despite challenges and litigation from the Christianist Right’s legal minions.
The Los Angeles Times conducted a poll after the state’s Supreme Court’s decision. The question posed was “Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision?” The results, as of May 18, reflect the changing times and attitudes. Of the 35,257 respondents 75.8 percent said “yes,” while only 24.2 percent said “no.” Other poll results sound the same note:
63 percent say gay marriage is a choiceJun. 3, 2008 04:46 PMUSA TodaySix in ten Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can wed the persons they choose, a new survey finds.As same-sex couples start lining up to get marriage licenses in California on June 17, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found 63 percent of adults say same-sex marriage is “strictly a private decision” between two people.
Then there’s reality and basic common sense. Jonathan Rauch, senior writer with National Journal and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, made the case in his June 21 Wall Street Journal article “Gay Marriage Is Good for America”:
Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can't go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn't have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples -- including gay parents -- live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.
Mr. Rauch’s statements are echoed by every legitimate medical and sociological association in America and are well summarized in this fact sheet from the American Psychological Association.
Dobson made two other statements in his June 2008 diatribe that attest to his being out of focus not only in relation to American families, but in relation to reality itself: "Has it occurred to Californians to consider what amounts to another 'recall election' for the four justices who have disregarded the institution of marriage? . . .
"Marriage is not simply a Judeo-Christian concept, although it finds its origins in the Garden of Eden. The Creator said to Adam and Eve, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.'" [Genesis 2:24, NIV]
Anyone who doesn’t agree with Dobson is wrong, immoral and anti-American -- sanctimonious megalomania at its darkest. To suggest judges who upheld constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens be “recalled” speaks to Dobson’s theofascist agenda.
Apparently Dr. Dobson is unaware of the fact that the civil institution of marriage is not a “Judeo-Christian concept” and existed long before Jehovah was created. But the truly scary part is that Dobson believes Adam and Eve were real people and lived in the Garden of Eden . . . no doubt along with Tyrannosaurs Rex.
Since he obviously takes the Bible as literal history and the final word on morality and living a truly “Christian” life, shouldn’t Dr. Dobson hear, honor and obey the words of Jesus before he claims to “stand up for Christ” again: “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” [Luke 18:22, NIV]
Dobson and the other leaders of the Christianist Right live large. One has to wonder how they justify that given Jesus’ explicit directive. Or maybe that’s one of those “outdated” Biblical edicts they feel so justified in ignoring when it suits their social-political purposes.
The Focus on the Family chairman ended his “passionate” June 2008 message with more irrationality: "let me remind you that California and the rest of the country would not be in the mess it is in if the U.S. Congress had not ignored and run from their duty to protect the institution of the family. All three presidential candidates voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment, and to my knowledge, not a one of them has uttered a word about the preservation of the traditional family. Honestly, we have to assume that they don’t give a hoot about marriage." [italics added]
“Protect the institution of the family?” If “the family” is in danger, it’s certainly not from same-sex couples who have fought so hard for the right to marry and have their families recognized. Perhaps Dobson has in mind a constitutional amendment making divorce illegal. Probably not though, since that would hurt his power-base as the 2004 Barna Group report, titled “Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians,” documented: “among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.” Barna also documented that “nearly one-quarter of the married ‘born agains’ (23%) get divorced two or more times.”
“Preservation of the traditional family.” Does Dobson really think that gay and lesbian Americans marrying will cause heterosexuals to stop marrying? Does Dobson really think that gay and lesbian Americans marrying will cause all existing “traditional families” to self-destruct? Can anyone really be that irrational, that delusional?
“We have to assume that they don’t give a hoot about marriage”: the ultimate non sequitur. How typical that a deceptive, deceiving charlatan prefaces such an absurdity with “honestly.”
Obviously Dobson wants to amend the U.S. Constitution so that it denies civil rights rather than protecting them. A new version of the Federal Marriage Amendment -- now dubbed the “Marriage Protection Amendment” -- has been introduced into the U.S. Senate. Two of the senators who “have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43” are particularly noteworthy:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).Craig, who entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, was detained and charged for attempting to engage in sexual activity with a male undercover police officer. His arrest and plea became public two months later. At that time, Craig attempted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea of not guilty. To date, his efforts have been denied by the courts.In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, commonly known as The DC Madam.
Now that’s hypocrisy on a par with the antics of one of Dobson’s old buddies, Ted Haggard. It’s also akin to that of Rev. R. Albert Mohler, ninth president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the board of Focus on the Family who, not surprisingly, supported Dobson’s criticism of Mr. Obama. You remember Rev. Mohler, the “sanctity of life” guy who had no problem with eugenics as long as those exterminated were gays.
On March 2, 2007, Mohler published an article titled “Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?” In it he implicitly acknowledged that sexual orientation has a genetic component and/or is hormonally determined prior to birth, but looked forward to the day when medical science could change that: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin . . ."
Biblical literalists have always argued against any pre-natal meddling with a fetus, claiming that whatever the fetus was, was its God-given birthright. Funny how that thinking changes so radically when gay people are involved. Mohler’s pre-natal genetic cleansing proposal is nothing less than a 21st century theofascist program of eugenics.
The more they pontificate, the more the self-righteous leaders of the Christianist Right contradict themselves and expose their theofascist agenda. Yet a considerable number of Americans continue to support these bigots and hate-mongers who hide behind “religion.” Why? Could it be that they share the same Schadenfreude needs? Or has religion just made them too scared to think for themselves and see reality as it is?In memory of the late George Carlin and his reality-based thoughts about religion . . .
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?

by Paul Craig Roberts

"On October 21 (1948) the Government of Israel took a decision that was to have a lasting and divisive effect on the rights and status of those Arabs who lived within its borders: the official establishment of military government in the areas where most of the inhabitants were Arabs." - Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History
I had given up on finding an American with a moral conscience and the courage to go with it and was on the verge of retiring my keyboard when I met the Rev. Thomas L. Are.
Rev. Are is a Presbyterian pastor who used to tell his Atlanta, Georgia, congregation: "I am a Zionist." Like most Americans, Rev. Are had been seduced by Israeli propaganda and helped to spread the propaganda among his congregation.
Around 1990 Rev. Are had an awakening for which he credits the Christian Canon of St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem and author Marc Ellis, co-editor of the book, Beyond Occupation.
Realizing that his ignorance of the situation on the ground had made him complicit in great crimes, Rev. Are wrote a book hoping to save others from his mistake and perhaps in part to make amends, Israeli Peace/Palestinian Justice, published in Canada in 1994.
Rev. Are researched his subject and wrote a brave book. Keep in mind that 1994 was long prior to Walt and Mearsheimer's recent book, which exposed the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to control the explanation Americans receive about the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Rev. Are begins with an account of Israel's opening attack on the Palestinians, an event which took place before most Americans alive today were born. He quotes the distinguished British historian, Arnold J. Toynbee: "The treatment of the Palestinian Arabs in 1947 (and 1948) was as morally indefensible as the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis. Though nor comparable in quantity to the crimes of the Nazis, it was comparable in quality."
Golda Meir, considered by Israelis as a great leader and by others as one of history's great killers, disputed the facts: "It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."
Golda Meir's apology for Israel's great crimes is so counter-factual that it blows the mind. Palestinian refugee camps still exist outside Palestine filled with Palestinians and their descendants whose towns, villages, homes and lands were seized by the Israelis in 1948. Rev. Are provides the reader with Na'im Ateek's description of what happened to him, an 11-year old, when the Jews came to take Beisan on May 12, 1948. Entire Palestinian communities simply disappeared.
In 1949 the United Nations counted 711,000 Palestinian refugees.
In 2005 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimated 4.25 million Palestinians and their descendants were refugees from their homeland.
The Israeli policy of evicting non-Jews has continued for six decades. On June 19, 2008, the Laity Committee in the Holy Land reported in Window Into Palestine that the Israeli Ministry of Interior is taking away the residency rights of Jerusalem Christians who have been reclassified as "visitors in their own city."
On December 10, 2007, MK Ephraim Sneh boasted in the Jerusalem Post that Israel had achieved "a true Zionist victory" over the UN partition plan "which sought to establish two nations in the land of Israel." The partition plan had assigned Israel 56 percent of Palestine, leaving the inhabitants with only 44 percent. But Israel had altered this over time. Sneh proudly declared: "When we complete the permanent agreement, we will hold 78 percent of the land while the Palestinians will control 22 percent."
Sneb could have added that the 22 percent is essentially a collection of unconnected ghettos cut off from one another and from roads, water, medical care, and jobs.
Rev. Are documents that the abuse of Palestinians' human rights is official Israeli policy. Killings, torture, and beatings are routine. On May 17, 1990, the Washington Post reported that Save the Children "documented indiscriminate beating, tear-gassing and shooting of children at home or just outside the house playing in the street, who were sitting in the classroom or going to the store for groceries."
On January 19, 1988, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, later Prime Minister, announced the policy of "punitive beating" of Palestinians. The Israelis described the purpose of punitive beating: "Our task is to recreate a barrier and once again put the fear of death into the Arabs of the area."
According to Save the Children, beatings of children and women are common. Rev. Are, citing the report in the Washington Post, writes: "Save the Children concluded that one-third of beaten children were under ten years old, and one-fifth under the age of five. Nearly a third of the children beaten suffered broken bones."
On February 8, 1988, Newsweek magazine quoted an Israeli soldier: "We got orders to knock on every door, enter and take out all the males. The younger ones we lined up with their faces against the wall, and soldiers beat them with billy clubs. This was no private initiative, these were orders from our company commander.... After one soldier finished beating a detainee, another soldier called him 'you Nazi,' and the first man shot back: 'You bleeding heart.' When one soldier tried to stop another from beating an Arab for no reason, a fist fight broke out."
These were the old days before conscience was eliminated from the ranks of the Israeli military.
In the London Sunday Times, June 19, 1977, Ralph Schoenman, executive director of the Bertrand Russell Foundation, wrote: "Israeli interrogators routinely ill-treat and torture Arab prisoners. Prisoners are hooded or blindfolded and are hung by their wrists for long periods. Most are struck in the genitals or in other ways sexually abused. Most are sexually assaulted. Others are administered electric shock."
Amnesty International concluded that "there is no country in the world in which the use of official and sustained torture is as well established and documented as in the case of Israel."
Even the pro-Israeli Washington Post reported: "Upon arrest, a detainee undergoes a period of starvation, deprivation of sleep by organized methods and prolonged periods during which the prisoner is made to stand with his hands cuffed and raised, a filthy sack covering the head. Prisoners are dragged on the ground, beaten with objects, kicked, stripped and placed under ice-cold showers."
Sounds like Abu Gharib. There are news reports that Israeli torture experts participated in the torture of the detainees assembled by the American military as part of the Bush Regime's propaganda onslaught to convince Americans that Iraq was overflowing with al-Qaeda terrorists. On July 23, 2008, Antiwar.com posted an Iraqi news report that the Iraqi government had released a total of 109,087 Iraqis that the Americans had "detained." Obviously, these "terrorist detainees" had been used for the needs of Bush Regime propaganda. No one will ever know how many of them were abused by Israeli torturers imported by the CIA.
Rev. Are's book makes sensible suggestions for resolving the conflict that Israel began. However, the problem is that Israeli governments believe only in force. The policy of the Israeli government has always been to beat, kill, and brutalize Palestinians into submission and flight. Anyone who doubts this can read the book of Israel's finest historian Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006).
Americans are a gullible and naive people. They have been complicit for 60 years in crimes that in Arnold Toynbee's words "are comparable in quality" to the crimes of Nazi Germany. As Toynbee was writing decades ago, the accumulated Israeli crimes might now be comparable also in quantity.
The US routinely vetoes United Nations condemnations of Israel for its brutal crimes against the Palestinians. Insouciant American taxpayers have been bled for a half century to provide the Israelis with superior military weapons with which Israelis assault their neighbors, all the while convincing America – essentially a captive nation – that Israel is the victim.
John F. Mahoney wrote: "Thomas Are reminds me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: an active pastor who comes to the unsettling realization that he and his people have been fed a terrible lie that is killing and torturing thousands of innocent men, women and children. Not without ample research and prayer does such a pastor, in turn, risk unsettling his congregation. The Reverend Are has done his homework and, I suspect, has prayed often and long during the writing of this courageous book."
Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian and pastor who was executed for his active participation in the German Resistance against Nazism.
Professor Benjamin M. Weir, San Francisco Theological Seminary, wrote: "This book will make the reader squirm. It asks you to lend your voice in behalf of the voiceless."
Americans who can no longer think for themselves and who are terrified of disapproval by their peer group are incapable of lending their voices to anyone except those who control the world of propaganda in which they live.
The ignorance and unconcern of Americans is a great frustration to my friends in the Israeli peace movement. Without outside support those Israelis who believe in good will are deprived, by America's support for their government's policy of violence, of any peaceful resolution of a conflict began in 1947 by Israeli aggression against unsuspecting Palestinian villages.
Rev. Are wrote his book with the hope that the pen is mightier than the sword and that facts can crowd out propaganda and create a framework for a just resolution of the Palestinian issue. In his concluding chapter, "What Christians Can Do," Rev. Are writes: "We cannot allow others to dictate our thinking on any subject, especially on anything as important as Christian faithfulness, which is tested by an attitude towards seeking justice for the oppressed. It's a Christian's duty to know."
Duty, of course, has costs. Rev. Are writes: "Speak up for the Palestinians and you will make enemies. Yet, as Christians, we must be willing to raise issues that until now we have chosen to dodge."
More than a decade later, President Jimmy Carter, a true friend of Israel, tried again to awaken Americans' moral conscience with his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Carter was instantly demonized by the Israel Lobby.
Sixty years of efforts by good and humane people to hold Israel accountable have so far failed, but they are more important today than ever before. Israel has its captive American nation on the verge of attacking Iran, the consequences of which could be catastrophic for all concerned. The alleged purpose of the attack is to eliminate nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons. The real reason is to eliminate all support for Hamas and Hezbollah so that Israel can seize the entire West Bank and southern Lebanon. The Bush regime is eager to do Israel's bidding, and the media and evangelical "Christian" churches have been preparing the American people for the event.
It is paradoxical that Israel is demonstrating that veracity lies not in the Christian belief in good will but in Lenin's doctrine that violence is the effective force in history and that the evangelical Christian Zionist churches agree.

"I have more Jewish grandchildren than anyone"

This is what America has become. A nation led by Israeli loving fifth columnists who will do ANYTHING to please their masters in Tel Aviv. Like Israeli-firster Speaker of the House Pelosi, who never misses a chance to kiss her Zionist Master's derrière. Here's a small sampling of Pelosi's traitorous activities performed in service to that racist and apartheid Jews only state of Hate, Israel:
Start an illegal and immoral war in Iraq to protect Israel's flank?
No problem.
Run up huge debts to keep this immoral war for Israel going and going? No problem.
Stick with the "official" story of how 9/11 was pulled off by some cave-dwelling madmen and not look at the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, pulled off by Zionists and Neocons?
No problem.
Appear at any number of Jews only conventions so that leaders like House Speaker Pelosi can show she can out-Jew even the Zionists in attendance?
No problem.
Repeat numerous Zionist lies about Iran's peaceful pursuit of nuclear power?
No problem.
Promise her Zionist Masters that she, Pelosi, the Speaker of the House and one of the most powerful women in America, will gladly invade another country, Iran, at Israel's behest?
No problem.
Getting tearful when she talks about some member of the ZOF--Zionist Occupation Force--yet never mention in public the thousands and thousands of American kids she has sent to their deaths fighting wars for Israel?
No problem.
Electing to Congress Americans who put America first, second and third, and tell the world's most dangerous, violent and psychotic nation, Israel, that you're the problem and not the solution in the Middle East?
PROBLEM.

Speaker Pelosi, Speaker Itzik talk tough on Iran at Hadassah conclave
By Tom Tugend
As the personification of women's empowerment, two of the most influential female politicians in the United States and Israel stood on the stage, greeted by the cheers of more than 1,800 delegates to the 94th national Hadassah convention.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik had telling messages, embroidered with some warm personal touches.
Pelosi let it be known that she was a mother of five and grandmother of seven, and later noted, "I have more Jewish grandchildren than anyone." (A pardonable exaggeration, since she has only two Jewish grandkids, who, however, serenade her with "Happy Birthday to You" in Hebrew.)
Itzik couldn't quite match Pelosi, but countered with her three children, all Jewish.
On the occasion, though, what was most on the minds of the two speakers was the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"We must take the madmen in Tehran seriously," Itzik urged. "Their nuclear plans threaten not only Tel Aviv, but also New York and Los Angeles."
Pelosi called for "far-reaching and tighter sanctions that recognize that Iran is a danger to the entire world," adding that global security "demands that Iran give up its nuclear ambitions."
The San Francisco Democrat, who led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Israel in May to help celebrate the nation's 60th anniversary, demanded the return of Israeli hostages held by the Iran-supported Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.
She said that the wife of hostage Eldad Regev had presented her with a set of her husband's military dog tags.
"I wore the dog tags when I was meeting the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the president of Syria," she said.
Pelosi also warmly praised the work of the Hadassah Medical Organization and its two medical centers in Jerusalem.
Noting that the Hadassah hospitals were open to anyone, regardless of race or religion, she told the delegates, "Hadassah accepts all patients, not because they are Jewish, but because you are Jewish."
Pelosi also called for Jewish community support for a series of health-related bills, ranging from stem-cell research to Medicare reform, which passed both houses of Congress, but were vetoed by President Bush.
"But it won't be long until these bills become law," she promised. "The next president will sign them."
Hadassah's national president, Nancy Falchuck of Boston, standing between Pelosi and Itzik, referred to them jokingly as "Stereo Speakers" and praised them as pioneers who had shattered the glass ceilings in their respective countries.
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, has some 300,000 women members in the United States and an additional 30,000 male associate members.
The four-day convention at the Bonaventure Hotel ended Wednesday, July 16, after a crammed program of sessions, workshops and plenary addresses on current politics, the future of medicine, anti-Semitism, women's health, information technology, being green and projects in Israel.
The opening event with Pelosi and Itzik concluded with a lengthy video presentation intertwining the histories of the State of Israel and Hadassah, from 1948 to the present.

26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government

Watch Story on Youtube

Video compilation about continuity of government plans for martial law including the KSLA News report of the 26,000 pastors recruited for handling the people during a martial law take over.
There are over 800 camps throughout the United States.Recently 26,000 pastors were recruited by FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Association) to instruct their congregations that in case of an emergency they are to peacefully hand over their arms and their children and go to the camps.In a case like Hurricane Katrina, people were starving, and had no home.They had no choice but to go to the FEMA camps or die of starvation.Is this the choice you want to be left with in the event of a local or national emergency, or might it be smarter to prepare now with emergency food, water and supplies?

OMG, The Torah says love thy neighbour, not kill them

Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship

Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship
Concerns grow that Canada's plan will wipeout alt news sites and spread to U.S.

By Mike Finch
A net-neutrality activist group has uncovered plans for the demise of the free Internet by 2010 in Canada. By 2012, the group says, the trend will be global.
Bell Canada and TELUS, Canada’s two largest Internet service providers (ISPs), will begin charging per-site fees on most Internet sites, reports anonymous sources within TELUS.
“It's beyond censorship, it is killing the biggest ecosystem of free expression and freedom of speech that has ever existed,” I Power spokesperson Reese Leysen said. I Power was the first group to report on the possible changes.
Bell Canada has not returned calls or emails.
The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether.
“We had inside sources from bigger companies who gave us the information on how exclusivity deals are being made at this moment between ISPs and big content providers (like TV production studios and major video game publishers) to decide which web sites will be in the ‘standard package’ offered to their customers, leaving all the rest of the Internet unreachable unless you pay extra subscription fees per every ‘non-standard’ site you visit,” Leysen said. “We knew the source to be 100% reliable, but we also knew the story would be highly controversial if we released the information. We did it because we knew that we’d get more official confirmations once we’d come forward with it. And indeed that is what happened. Dylan Pattyn, who is writing the soon-to-be published article for Time Magazine, received confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and TELUS after we released the information.”
The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.
“The Internet will become a playground for billion-dollar content providers just like television is,” said Leysen. “It won’t be possible for a few teenagers in their parents’ basement to start a small site like E-bay that then grows out to be the next big thing anymore. Right now the Internet belongs to those with the greatest ideas. In the future, it’ll belong to those with the biggest budgets.”
With plans in Canada uncovered, I Power thinks that companies in the United States and other nations are also planning similar actions.
“By 2012 ISPs all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These ‘other’ sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet,” Leysen said.
Such a subscription plan could possibly restrict free speech far beyond even the current restrictions set by the governments of communist China. Not only would browsing be limited, but privacy would be invaded, as every web site viewed would likely be recorded on a bill in a manner similar to a phone bill.
Why would the ISPs institute such a plan? One word: money.
“This new subscription model is commercially far more beneficial to them than how it is now,” Leysen said. “If Fox wants to launch a new television show online, they’ll have to pay big money to all major ISPs to ensure that their new show will be offered and pushed in the ‘standard package’ of sites/services/channels that people will get through their Internet access. Plus ISPs will also gain extra revenue out of people trying to access the rest of the Internet, as they’ll pay extra subscription fees for every web site they visit.”
But it’s not just the big ISPs that stand to gain.
“Marketing and big budget ‘content-pushing’ just doesn’t seem to work on the Internet, and this is something that several industries want fixed. ISPs know this and will benefit greatly by fixing this for the marketing and entertainment industry,” Leysen said.
The ISPs are said to be confident they can institute such plans through deceptive marketing and fear tactics.
“The Internet will be more and more marketed as a place full of child pornography and other horrible illegal activity in order to get people on their [the ISP’s] side once they start restricting it and make it ‘safer,’” Leysen said. “Unless we really make a stand for this and make sure that mainstream media thoroughly covers the issue, the whole thing will be eased in with proper marketing to make sure that most mainstream customers won’t make a big deal out of it. They will only realize what was lost long after it’s gone.”
For more information about this story see http://ipower.ning.com
For more information about Internet freedom: savetheinternet.com
Please make a donation to American Free Press
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
EMAIL A FRIEND ABOUT THIS PAGE

Understanding Prejudice

While taking this survey remember how the US is preaching to everyone that it was formed from Christian principles. Tom

I have found this to be a very educational survey to take if taken with an open mind, click here