NEWS2U Articles & Comments
Critical Reporting

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Cindy Sheehan
Our Imploding President

By Tom Engelhardt
Thursday 29 September 2005

Katrina will be Bush's Monica.

A TomDispatch Interview with Cindy Sheehan

My brief immersion in the almost unimaginable life of Cindy Sheehan begins on the Friday before the massive antiwar march past the White House. I take a cab to an address somewhere at the edge of Washington DC - a city I don't know well - where I'm to have a quiet hour with her. Finding myself on a porch filled with peace signs and vases of roses (assumedly sent for Sheehan), I ring the doorbell, only to be greeted by two barking dogs but no human beings. Checking my cell phone, I discover a message back in New York from someone helping Sheehan out. Good Morning America has just called; plans have changed. Can I make it to Constitution and 15th by five? I rush to the nearest major street and, from a bus stop, fruitlessly attempt to hail a cab. The only empty one passes me by and a young black man next to me offers an apologetic commentary: "I hate to say this, but they probably think you're hailing it for me and they don't want to pick me up." On his recommendation, I board a bus, leaping off (twenty blocks of crawl later) at the sight of a hotel with a cab stand.

A few minutes before five, I'm finally standing under the Washington monument, beneath a cloud-dotted sky, in front of "Camp Casey," a white tent with a blazing red "Bring them home tour" banner. Behind the tent is a display of banged-up, empty soldiers' boots; and then, stretching almost as far as the eye can see or the heart can feel, a lawn of small white crosses, nearly two thousand of them, some with tiny American flags planted in the nearby ground. In front of the serried ranks of crosses is a battered looking metal map of the United States rising off a rusty base. Cut out of it are the letters, "America in Iraq, killed ___, wounded ___." (It's wrenching to note that, on this strange sculpture with eternal letters of air, only the figures of 1,910 dead and 14,700 wounded seem ephemeral, written as they are in white chalk over a smeared chalk background, evidence of numerous erasures.)

This is, at the moment, Ground Zero for the singular movement of Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey, who was killed in Sadr City, Baghdad on April 4, 2004, only a few days after arriving in Iraq. Her movement began in the shadows and on the Internet, but burst out of a roadside ditch in Crawford, Texas, and, right now, actually seems capable of changing the political map of America. When I arrive, Sheehan is a distant figure, walking with a crew from Good Morning America amid the white crosses. I'm told by Jodie, a stalwart of Code Pink, the women's antiwar group, in a flamboyant pink-feathered hat, just to hang in there along with Joan Baez, assorted parents of soldiers, vets, admirers, tourists, press people, and who knows who else.

As Sheehan approaches, she's mobbed. She hugs some of her greeters, poses for photos with others, listens briefly while people tell her they came all the way from California or Colorado just to see her, and accepts the literal T-shirt off the back of a man, possibly a vet, with a bandana around his forehead, who wants to give her "the shirt off my back." She is brief and utterly patient. She offers a word to everyone and anyone. At one point, a man shoves a camera in my hand so that he and his family can have proof of this moment - as if Cindy Sheehan were already some kind of national monument, which in a way she is.

But, of course, she's also one human being, even if she's on what the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton would call a "survivor mission" for her son. Exhaustion visibly inhabits her face. (Later, she'll say to me, "Most people, if they came with me for a day, would be in a coma by eleven A.M.") She wears a tie-dyed, purple T-shirt with "Veterans for Peace" on the front and "waging peace" on the back. Her size surprises me. She's imposing, far taller than I expected, taller certainly than my modest five-foot, six inches. Perhaps I'm startled only because I'd filed her away - despite every strong commentary I'd read by her – as a grieving mother and so, somehow, a diminished creature.

And then, suddenly, a few minutes after five, Jodie is hustling me into the backseat of a car with Cindy Sheehan beside me, and Joan Baez beside her. Cindy's sister Dede, who wears an "Anything war can do, peace can do better" T-shirt and says to me later, "I'm the behind-the-scenes one, I'm the quiet one," climbs into the front seat. As soon as the car leaves the curb, Cindy turns to me: "We better get started."

"Now?" I ask, flustered at the thought of interviewing her under such chaotic conditions. She offers a tired nod - I'm surely the 900th person of this day - and says, "It's the only way it'll happen." And so, with my notebook (tiny printed questions scattered across several pages) on my knees, clutching my two cheap tape recorders for dear life and shoving them towards her, we begin:

TomDispatch: You've said that the failed bookends of George Bush's presidency are Iraq and Katrina. And here we are with parts of New Orleans flooded again. Where exactly do you see us today?

Cindy Sheehan: Well, the invasion of Iraq was a serious mistake, and the invasion and occupation have been seriously mismanaged. The troops don't have what they need. The money's being dropped into the pockets of war profiteers and not getting to our soldiers. It's a political war. Not only should we not be there, it's making our country very vulnerable. It's creating enemies for our children's children. Killing innocent Arabic Muslims, who had no animosity towards the United States and meant us no harm, is only creating more problems for us.

Katrina was a natural disaster that nobody could help, but the man-made disaster afterwards was just horrible. I mean, number one, all our resources are in Iraq. Number two, what little resources we did have were deployed far too late. George Bush was golfing and eating birthday cake with John McCain while people were hanging off their houses praying to be rescued. He's so disconnected from this country - and from reality. I heard a line yesterday that I thought was perfect. This man said he thinks Katrina will be Bush's Monica. Only worse.

TD: It seems logical that the families of dead soldiers should lead an antiwar movement, but historically it's almost unique. I wondered if you had given some thought to why it happened here and now.

CS: That's like people asking me, "Why didn't anybody ever think of going to George Bush's ranch to protest anything?"

TD: I was going to ask you that too ...

CS: [Laughs.] I don't know. I just thought of it and went down to do it. It was so serendipitous. I was supposed to go to England for a week in August to do Downing Street [Memo] events with [Congressman] John Conyers. That got cancelled. I was supposed to go to Arkansas for a four-day convention. That got cancelled. So I had my whole month free. I was going to be in Dallas for the Veteran's for Peace convention. The last straw was on Wednesday, August 3 - the fourteen Marines who were killed and George Bush saying that all of our soldiers had died for a noble cause and we had to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by continuing the mission. I had just had it. That was enough and I had this idea to go to Crawford.

The first day we were there - this is how unplanned it was - we were sitting in lawn chairs, about six of us, underneath the stars with one flashlight between us, and we were going to the bathroom in a ten-gallon bucket.

DeDe: Five-gallon ...

CS: A Five-gallon bucket, sorry. So that's how well planned this action was. We just planned it as we were going along and, for something so spontaneous, it turned out to be incredibly powerful and successful. It's hard for some people to believe how spontaneous it was.

TD: You've written that George Bush refusing to meet with you was the spark that lit the prairie fire - and that his not doing so reflected his cowardice. You also said that if he had met you that fatal ... fateful day ...

Joan Baez: Fatal day ...

TD: Fatal - it was fatal for him - things might have turned out quite differently.

CS: If he had met with me, I know he would have lied to me. I would have called him on his lies and it wouldn't have been a good meeting, but I would have left Crawford. I would have written about it, probably done a few interviews, but it wouldn't have sparked this exciting, organic, huge peace movement. So he really did the peace movement a favor by not meeting with me.

TD: I thought his fatal blunder was to send out [National Security Advisor Stephen] Hadley and [Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joe] Hagin as if you were the prime minister of Poland. [She laughs.] And it suddenly made you in terms of the media ...

CS: ... credible.

TD: So what did Hadley and Hagen say to you?

CS: They said, "What do you want to tell the President?" I said, "I want to ask the President, what is the noble cause my son died for?" And they kept telling me: Keep America safe from terrorism for freedom and democracy. Blah-blah-blah ... all the excuses I wasn't going to take, except from the President. Then we talked about weapons of mass destruction and the lack thereof, about how they had really believed it. I was: Well, really, Mr. Stephen (Yellowcake Uranium) Hadley ... I finally said, "This is a waste of time. I might be a grieving mother, but I'm not stupid. I'm very well informed and I want to meet with the President." And so they said, "Okay, we'll pass on your concerns to the President."

They said at one point, "We didn't come out here thinking we'd change your mind on policy." And I said, "Yes you did." They thought they were going to intimidate me, that they were going to impress me with the high level of administration official they had sent out, and after they explained everything to me, I was going to go [her voice becomes liltingly mocking], "Ohhhh, I really never saw it that way. Okay, let's go guys." You know, that's exactly what they thought they were going to do to me. And I believe it was a move that did backfire because, as you said, it gave me credibility and then, all of a sudden, the White House press corps thought this might be a story worth covering.

TD: What was that like? I had been reading your stuff on the Internet for over a year, but ...

CS: I think in progressive circles I was very well known. But all of a sudden I was known all over the world. My daughters were in Europe when my mother had her stroke. My husband and I decided not to tell the girls. We didn't want to ruin their vacation, but they saw it on TV. So it really just spread like wildfire. And not only did it bring wanted attention, it brought unwanted attention from the right-wing media. But that didn't affect me, that didn't harm me at all.

I'd been doing this a long time. I'd been on Wolf Blitzer, Chris Mathews, all those shows. I'd done press conferences. It was just the intensity that spiked up. But my message has always remained the same. I didn't just fall off some pumpkin truck on August 6th and start doing this. The media couldn't believe someone like me could be so articulate and intelligent and have my own message. Number one, I'm a woman; number two, I'm a grieving mother; so they had the urge to marginalize me, to pretend like somebody's pulling my strings. Our President's not even articulate and intelligent. Someone must be pulling his strings, so someone must be pulling Cindy Sheehan's too. That offended me. Oh my gosh, you think someone has to put words into my mouth! [She laughs.] Do some research!

TD: Did you feel they were presenting you without some of your bluntness?

CS: God forbid anybody speak bluntly or tell the truth. Teresa Heinz Kerry, they marginalized her too because she always spoke her mind.

TD: Would you like to speak about your bluntness a little because words you use like "war crimes" aren't ones Americans hear often.

CS: All you have to do is look at the Nuremberg Tribunal or the Geneva Conventions. Clearly they've committed war crimes. Clearly. It's black and white. It's not me coming up with this abstract idea. It's like, well, did you put a bullet in that person's head or didn't you? "Yes I did." Well, that's a crime. It's not shades of grey. They broke every treaty. They broke our own Constitution. They broke Nuremberg. They broke the Geneva Conventions. Everything. And if somebody doesn't say it, does it mean it didn't happen? Somebody has to say it, and I'll say it. I've called George Bush a terrorist. He says a terrorist is somebody who kills innocent people. That's his own definition. So, by George Bush's own definition, he is a terrorist, because there are almost 100,000 innocent Iraqis that have been killed. And innocent Afghanis that have been killed.

And I think a lot of the mainstream opposition is glad I'm saying it, because they don't have to say it. They're not strong enough or brave enough or they think they have something politically at stake. We've had Congress members talk about impeachment and war crimes. I've heard them. But they're the usual suspects. They're marginalized too. They've always been against the war, so we can't listen to them.

You know, I had always admired people like the woman who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving or John Walsh for starting the Adam Walsh Foundation after his son was killed. I thought I could never do anything like that to elevate my suffering or my tragedy, and then, when it happened to me, I found out I did have the strength.

[It's about 5:30 when we pull up at a Hyatt Hotel. Cindy, Dede, and I proceed to the deserted recesses of the hotel's restaurant where Cindy has her first modest meal of the day. The rest of the interview takes place between spoonfuls of soup.]

TD: I've read a lot of articles about you in which your son Casey is identified as an altar boy or an Eagle Scout, but would you be willing to tell me a little more about him?

CS: He was very calm. He never got mad. He never got too wild. One way or the other, he didn't waver much. I have another son and two daughters. He was the oldest one and they just idolized him. He never gave anybody trouble, but he was a procrastinator, the kind of person who, if he had a big project at school, would wait until the day before to do it. But when he had a job - he worked full time before he went into the Army and he was never late for work or missed a day in two years. I think that's pretty amazing. The reason we talk about him being an altar boy was that church was his number one priority, even when he was away from us in the Army. He helped at the chapel. He never missed Mass. He was an usher. He was a Eucharistic minister. When he was at home, he was heavily involved in my youth ministry.

For eight years I was a youth minister at our parish and for three of those years in high school he was in my youth group; then for three of those years in college he helped me.

TD: Tell me about his decision to join the Army.

CS: A recruiter got hold of him, probably at a vulnerable point in his life, promised him a lot of things, and didn't fulfill one of the promises. It was May of 2000. There was no 9/11. George Bush hadn't even happened. When George Bush became his commander-and-chief, my son's doom was sealed. George Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he was even elected president. While he was still governor of Texas he was talking about: "If I was commander-and-chief, this is what I would do."

Back then, my son was promised a twenty thousand dollar signing bonus. He only got four thousand dollars of that when he finished his advanced training. He was promised a laptop, so he could take classes from wherever he was deployed in the world. He never got that. They promised him he could finish college because he only had one year left when he went in the Army. They would never let him take a class. They promised him he could be a chaplain's assistant which was what he really wanted to do; but, when he got to boot camp, they said that was full and he could be a Humvee mechanic or a cook. So he chose Humvee mechanic. The most awful thing the recruiter promised him was: Even if there was a war, he wouldn't see combat because he scored so high on the ASVAB [Career Exploration] tests. He would only be in war in a support role. He was in Iraq for five days before he was killed in combat.

TD: Did you discuss Iraq with him at all?

CS: Yes we did. He didn't agree with it. Nobody in our family agreed with it. He said, "I wish I didn't have to go, Mom, but I have to. It's my duty and my buddies are going." I believe we as Americans have every right to, and should be willing to, defend our country if we're in danger. But Iraq had nothing to do with keeping America safe. So that's why we disagreed with it. He reenlisted after the invasion of Iraq, because he was told if he didn't, he'd have to go to Iraq anyway - he'd be stop-lossed - but if he did, he'd get to choose a new MOS [military specialty] when he got home.

TD: Can you tell me something about your own political background?

CS: I've always been a pretty liberal democrat, but I don't think this issue is partisan. I think it's life and death. Nobody asked Casey what political party he belonged to before they sent him to die in an unjust and immoral war.

TD: You met with Hillary Clinton yesterday, didn't you? What do you think generally of the Democratic... well, whatever it is?

CS: They've been very weak. I think Kerry lost because he didn't come out strong against the war. He came out to be even more of a nightmare than George Bush. You know, we'll put more troops in; I'll hunt down terrorists; I'll kill them! That wasn't the right thing to say. The right thing to say was: This war was wrong; George Bush lied to us; people are dead because of it; they shouldn't be dead; and if I'm elected, I'll do everything to get our troops home as soon as possible. Then, instead of seeing the failure Kerry was with his middle-of-the-road, wishy-washy, cowardly policies, the rest of the Democrats have just kept saying the same things.

Howard Dean came out and said he hopes that the President is successful in Iraq. What's that mean? How can somebody be successful when we have no goals or defined mission or objectives to achieve there? They've been very cowardly and spineless. What we did at Camp Casey was give them some spine. The doors are open to them, Democrats and Republicans alike. As [former Congressman and Win Without War Director] Tom Andrews said, if they won't see the light, they'll feel the heat. And I think they're feeling the heat.

I can see it happening. I can see some Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Walter Jones breaking ranks with the party line. We met with a Republican yesterday - I don't want to say his name because I don't want to scare him off - but he seems to be somebody we can work with. Of course, as it gets closer to the congressional elections, we'll be letting his constituents know that he can be worked with.

TD: So you're planning to go into the elections as a force?

CS: It's totally about the war, about their position on the war. If people care about that issue, then that's what they should make it about too. We're starting a "Meet with the Moms" campaign. We're going to target every single congressman and senator to show their constituents exactly where they stand on the war. People in the state of New York, for instance, should look at their senators and say, if you don't come out for bringing our troops home as soon as possible, we're not going to reelect you.

TD: Did Hillary give you any satisfaction at all?

CS: Her position is still to send in more troops and honor the sacrifices of the fallen, which sounds like a Bush position, but the dialogue was open.

TD: Don't you think it's strange, these politicians like [Senator] Joe Biden, for example, who talk about sending in more troops, even though we all know there are no more troops?

CS: Yes ... Where you gettin' 'em? Where you gettin' 'em? It's crazy. I mean we're going to send more troops in there and leave our country even more vulnerable? Leave us open for attack somewhere else, or to be attacked by natural and man-made disasters again?

TD: You want the troops out now. Bush isn't about to do that, but have you thought about how you would proceed if you could?

CS: When we say now, we don't mean that they can all come home tomorrow. I hope everybody knows that. We have to start by withdrawing our troops from the cities, bringing them to the borders and getting them out. We have to replace our military with something that looks Arabic, something that looks Iraqi, to rebuild their country. You know, they have the technology, they have the skills, but they don't have any jobs right now. How desperate for a job does one have to be to stand in line to apply to the Iraqi National Guard? I mean, they're killed just standing in line! Give the Iraqis as much help and support as they need to rebuild their country which is in chaos. When our military presence leaves, a lot of the violence and insurgency will die. There will be some regional struggles with the different communities in Iraq, but that's happening right now. The British put together a country that should never have been put together. Maybe it should be split into three different countries - who knows? But that's up to them, not us.

TD: And what do you actually expect? We have three and a half more years of this administration ...

CS: No we don't! [She chuckles.] I think Katrina's going to be his Monica. It's not a matter of "if" any more, it's a matter of "when," because clearly ... clearly, they're criminals. I mean, look at the people who got the first no-bid contracts to clean-up and rebuild New Orleans. It's Halliburton again. It's crazy. One negative effect of Camp Casey was it took a lot of heat off Karl Rove for his hand in the [Valerie] Plame case. But I hear indictments are coming down soon. So that's one way it's going to come about. George Bush is getting ready to implode. I mean have you seen him lately? He's a man who's out of control.

[Note: For those who would like to read Cindy Sheehan in her own words, or more about her, check out her archive at, or go to the website which has been carrying her latest statements and has extensive coverage on her, or visit which offers thorough, up-to-date coverage of her activities and much else.]

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the collapse of American triumphalism in the Cold War era, as well as a novel, The Last Days of Publishing.


Friday, September 23, 2005

Cleric says...
al-Zarqawi died long ago

Dahr Jamail in Iraq recently contacted the family of al-Zarqawi in Jordan and got confirming evidence that al-Zaqarwi is dead.
Friday 16 September 2005

Al-Qaida's leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead but Washington continues to use him as a bogeyman to justify a prolonged military occupation, an Iraqi Shia cleric says in an interview.

Sheikh Jawad al-Kalesi, the imam of the al-Kazemiya mosque in Baghdad, told France's Le Monde newspaper on Friday: "I don't think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi exists as such. He's simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people."

Al-Kalesi claimed that al-Zarqawi was killed in the Kurdish northern region of Iraq at the beginning of the US-led war on the country as he was meeting with members of the Ansar Al-Islam group affiliated to al-Qaida.

"His family in Jordan even held a ceremony after his death. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is therefore a ploy used by the Americans, an excuse to continue the occupation. It's a pretext so they don't leave Iraq."

Al-Kalesi made the comments to Le Monde as he passed through Paris after attending an inter-religious gathering in the eastern French city of Lyon organised by the Roman Catholic Sant'Egidio Community.

Fake statement

The cleric dismissed statements attributed to Zarqawi.

He said an audio message posted on the Internet on Wednesday and attributed to al-Zarqawi, was meant to push Shia "to find refuge with the Americans rather than join the resistance."

The voice message had declared "all-out war" on Iraqi Shia and claimed responsibility for a series of attacks that killed more than 150 people, most of them Shia waiting to be hired as day labourers in Baghdad.

"If the occupation continues, the situation will only get worse and Iraqis will increasingly join the resistance," al-Kalesi said.

Iraq's main Sunni Arab religious authority, the Association of Muslim Scholars, has condemned the call to arms against Shia, calling it "very dangerous" and saying it "plays into the hands of the occupier who wants to split up the country and spark a sectarian war."


The British Thugs

British "Pseudo-Gang" Terrorists Exposed in Basra

Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire
September 20, 2005

Baghdad Dweller reports two British soldiers held by "Iraqi authorities" in Basra (also described as "Shiite militiamen" in the corporate media), and subsequently freed after the British stormed a police jail, were working undercover as bombers. Baghdad Dweller includes a link to the Washington Post, where the following appears: "Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives. Photographs of the two men in custody showed them in civilian clothes."

Even though the Washington Post mentions two Brits were detained, apparently caught red-handed shooting Iraqi police and planting explosives, it does not bother to mention the SAS or its long and sordid history of engaging in covert pseudo-gang behavior and conclude the obvious: Britain, and the United States the latter having admitted formulating the Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) in 2002, a brain child of neocons staffing the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, designed to "stimulate reactions" on the part of "terrorists" (in Iraq, that would be the resistance) are intimately involved in sowing chaos and spreading violence in Iraq and more than likely soon enoughin Iran and Syria.

Of course, this unfortunate and embarrassing incident in Basra will fall off the front page of corporate newspapers and websites soon enough, replaced with more appropriate, if fantastical, propaganda implicating the Iraqi resistance and intel ops such as al-Zarqawi for the violence, obviously engineered to create a civil war in Iraq and thus divide the country and accomplish the neocon-Likudite plan to destroy Islamic culture and society.


It is not surprising the corporate media in the United States and Britain would omit crucial details on this story. In order to get the whole story, we have to go elsewhere or instance, China's Xinhuanet news agency. "Two persons wearing Arab uniforms [see the M.O. cited above] opened fire at a police station in Basra. A police patrol followed the attackers and captured them to discover they were two British soldiers," an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua. "The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said."

So, the next time you read or hear about crazed "al-Qaeda in Iraq" terrorists blowing up children or desperate job applicants, keep in mind, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, the perpetrators may very well be British SAS goons who cut their teeth killing Irish citizens.

:: Article nr. 15936 sent on 20-sep-2005 21:20 ECT

:: The address of this page is :

:: The incoming address of this article is :



UK "Undercover Soldiers" Caught driving Booby Trapped Car

The following Reuters report raises some disturbing questions.

Why were undercover British soldiers wearing traditional Arab headscarves firing at Iraqi police?

The incident took place just prior to a major religious event in Basra.

The report suggests that the police thought the British soldiers looked "suspicious". What was the nature of their mission?

Occupation forces are supposesd to be collaborating with Iraqi authorities. Why did Britsh Forces have to storm the prison using tanks and armoured vehicles to liberate the British undercover agents?

"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by helicopters " to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."

Was there concern that the British "soldiers" who were being held by the Iraqi National Guard would be obliged to reveal the nature and objective of their undercover mission?

A report of Al Jazeera TV, which preceeded the raid on the prison, suggests that the British undercover soldiers were driving a booby trapped car loaded with ammunition. The Al Jazeera report (see below) also suggests that the riots directed against British military presence were motivated because the British undercover soldiers were planning to explode the booby trapped car in the centre of Basra.

We have with us on the telephone from Baghdad Fattah al-Shaykh, member of the Iraqi National Assembly. What are the details of and the facts surrounding this incident?

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. There have been continuous provocative acts since the day before yesterday by the British forces against the peaceful sons of Basra. There have been indiscriminate arrests, the most recent of which was the arrest of Shaykh Ahmad al-Farqusi and two Basra citizens on the pretext that they had carried out terrorist operations to kill US soldiers. This is a baseless claim. This was confirmed to us by the second secretary at the British Embassy in Baghdad, when we met with him a short while ago. He said that there is evidence on this.

We say: You should come up with this evidence or forget about this issue. If you really want to look for truth, then we should resort to the Iraqi justice away from the British provocations against the sons of Basra, particularly what happened today when the sons of Basra caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type.

It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market. However, the sons of the city of Basra arrested them. They then fired at the people there and killed some of them. The two arrested persons are now at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime.

Who's Blowing Up Iraq?

New evidence that bombs are being planted by British

by Mike Whitney
September 20, 2005

"The Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES."

Wash. Post
Ellen Knickmeyer

"British Smash into Jail to Free Two Detained Soldiers"

In more than two years since the United States initiated hostilities against Iraq, there has never been a positive identification of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.


That doesn't mean that he doesn't exist; it simply suggests that prudent people will challenge the official version until his whereabouts and significance in the conflict can be verified.

At present, much of the rationale for maintaining the occupation depends on this elusive and, perhaps, illusory figure. It's odd how Al-Zarqawi appears at the precise coordinates of America's bombing-raids, and then, miraculously vanishes unscathed from the scene of the wreckage. This would be a remarkable feat for anyone, but especially for someone who only has one leg.

Al-Zarqawi may simply be a fantasy dreamed up by Pentagon planners to put a threatening face on the Iraqi resistance. The Defense Dept has been aggressive in its effort to shape information in a way that serves the overall objectives of the occupation. The primary aim of the Pentagon's "Strategic Information" program is to distort the truth in a way that controls the storyline created by the media.

Al-Zarqawi fits perfectly within this paradigm of intentional deception.

The manipulation of information factors heavily in the steady increase of Iraqi casualties, too. Although the military refuses "to do body counts"; many people take considerable interest in the daily death toll.

Last week, over 200 civilians were killed in seemingly random acts of violence purportedly caused by al-Zarqawi. But, were they? Were these massive attacks the work of al-Zarqawi as the western media reports or some other "more shadowy" force?

One member of the Iraqi National Assembly. Fatah al-Sheikh, stated,

"It seems that the American forces are trying to escalate the situation in order to make the Iraqi people suffer.. There is a huge campaign for the agents of the foreign occupation to enter and plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people, and spread rumors in order to scare the one from the other. - The occupiers are trying to start religious incitement and if it does not happen, then they will try to start an internal Shiite incitement."

Al-Sheikh's feelings are shared by a great many Iraqis. They can see that everything the US has done, from the forming a government made up predominantly of Shi'ites and Kurds, to creating a constitution that allows the breaking up to the country (federalism), to using the Peshmerga and Badr militia in their attacks on Sunni cities, to building an Interior Ministry entirely comprised of Shi'ites, suggests that the Pentagon's strategy is to fuel the sectarian divisions that will lead to civil war. Al-Zarqawi is an integral facet of this broader plan. Rumsfeld has cast the Jordanian as the agent-provocateur; the driving force behind religious partition and antagonism.

But, al-Zarqawi has nothing to gain by killing innocent civilians, and everything to lose. If he does actually operate in Iraq, he needs logistical supporting all his movements; including help with safe-houses, assistants, and the assurance of invisibility in the community. ("The ocean in which he swims") These would disappear instantly if he recklessly killed and maimed innocent women and children.

Last week the Imam of Baghdad's al-Kazimeya mosque, Jawad al-Kalesi said, that "al-Zarqawi is dead but Washington continues to use him as a bogeyman to justify a prolonged military occupation. He's simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people." Al-Kalesi added that al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of the war in the Kurdish north and that "His family in Jordan even held a ceremony after his death." (AFP)

Most Iraqis probably agree with al-Kalesi, but that hasn't deterred the Pentagon from continuing with the charade.

This is understandable given that al-Zarqawi is the last tattered justification for the initial invasion. It's doubtful that the Pentagon will ditch their final threadbare apology for the war. But the reality is vastly different from the spin coming from the military. In fact, foreign fighters play a very small role in Iraq with or without al-Zarqawi. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) revealed this week in their report: "Analysts and government officials in the US and Iraq overstated the size of the foreign element in the Iraqi insurgency.. Iraqi fighters made up less than 10% of the armed groups' ranks, perhaps, even half of that." The report poignantly notes that most of the foreign fighters were not previously militants at all, but were motivated by, "revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country."

The report concludes that the invasion of Iraq has added thousands of "fresh recruits to Osama bin Laden's network;" a fact that is no longer in dispute among those who have studied the data on the topic.

The al-Zarqawi phantasm is a particularly weak-link in the Pentagon's muddled narrative. The facts neither support the allegations of his participation nor prove that foreigners are a major contributor to the ongoing violence.

Instead, the information points to a Defense establishment that cannot be trusted in anything it says, and that may be directly involved in the terrorist-bombings that have killed countless thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Regrettably, that is prospect that can't be ignored. After all, no one else benefits from the slaughter. (Note: Since this article was written, the Washington Post has added to our suspicions. In an Ellen Knickmeyer article "British Smash into Iraqi Jail to free 2 detained Soldiers" 9-20-05, Knickmeyer chronicles the fighting between British forces and Iraqi police who were detaining 2 British commandos.


Is this why the British army was ordered to "burst through the walls of an Iraqi jail Monday in the southern city of Basra".followed by "British armored vehicles backed by helicopter gun-ships" ending in "hours of gun battles and rioting in Basra's streets"? (Washington Post)

Reuters reported that "half a dozen armored vehicles had smashed into the jail" and the provincial governor, Mohammed Walli, told news agencies that the British assault was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible."

So, why were the British so afraid to go through the normal channels to get their men released? Could it be that the two commandos were "trying to plant explosives" as the article suggests?

An interview on Syrian TV last night also alleges that the British commandos "were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets".

"Al-Munajji"] In fact, Nidal, this incident gave answers to questions and suspicions that were lacking evidence about the participation of the occupation in some armed operations in Iraq.

Many analysts and observers here had suspicions that the occupation was involved in some armed operations against civilians and places of worship and in the killing of scientists. But those were only suspicions that lacked proof.

The proof came today through the arrest of the two British soldiers while they were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets. This proves, according to observers, that the occupation is not far from many operations that seek to sow sedition and maintain disorder, as this would give the occupation the justification to stay in Iraq for a longer period.

[Zaghbur] Ziyad al-Munajjaid in Baghdad, thank you very much.

Copyright Syrian Arab TV and BBC Monitoring, 2005"

And then there was this on Al-Jazeera TV


Interview with Fattah al-Shayk, member of the National Assembly and deputy for Basra.

"the sons of Basra caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market. However, the sons of the city of Basra arrested them. They [the two non-Iraqis] then fired at the people there and killed some of them. The two arrested persons are now at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime."

Copyright Al Jazeera TV and BBC Monitoring, 2005

(Thanks to Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research for the quotes from Al Jazeera and Syrian TV)

Does this solve the al-Zarqawi mystery?

Are the bombs that are killing so many Iraqi civilians are being planted by British and American Intelligence?


The US Thugs

Deadly week for Shiite Iraqis, US blames Syria

Sat, 17 Sep 2005

BAGHDAD (AFP) - A string of attacks against majority Shiites has left some 200 dead in Iraq this week, one of the bloodiest periods since the 2003 US-led invasion, while the US administration has ratcheted up accusations that Syria is supporting insurgents.

A string of attacks against majority Shiites has left some 200 dead in Iraq this week, one of the bloodiest periods since the 2003 US-led invasion, while the US administration has ratcheted up accusations that Syria is supporting insurgents.

The latest attack saw a suicide car bomber targeting Shiite worshippers on Friday as they left a mosque in Tuz Khurmatu, 170 kilometers (100 miles) north of Baghdad. Eleven worshippers were killed and 24 others were wounded.

The bloodshed followed a call Wednesday by Al-Qaeda's frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for "total war" against the Shiites, a threat that religious leaders from both communities warned could spark a sectarian war.

Zarqawi's extremist Sunni group had claimed responsibility for a wave of bombings in Baghdad, including one Wednesday that killed some 112 Shiite day labourers as they waited for work.

Nationwide, the death toll hit nearly 150 Wednesday, at least 23 on Thursday and more than 20 on Friday.

In violence on Saturday, one Iraqi was killed and 17 others, including three soldiers, were wounded in Baquba, 60 kilometers (35 miles) northeast of the capital, when an Iraqi army patrol was hit by a car bomb, police said.

Two US army patrols came under attacks Saturday in Tikrit, hometown of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but no casualties were reported, the US military said.

Eleven bodies were also found at various locations in Iraq. All were blindfolded and handcuffed and had been shot at close range, security sources said.

The Jordanian-born extremist, who has a 25-million-dollar US bounty on his head, has claimed his total war is in revenge for a US-Iraqi crackdown on the northern town of Tal Afar near the Syrian border.

But Zarqawi's call was condemned by the Committee of Muslim Scholars ?Iraq's main religious authority of the disenchanted Sunni Arabs.

"What Zarqawi said is very dangerous and plays into the hands of the occupier who wants to split up the country and spark a sectarian war," the committee said.

"From a religious point of view, you (Zarqawi) must renounce your threat because it abuses the image of jihad (holy war)," the statement said.

The Committee of Scholars said "Iraq's Shiites are not responsible for the government's sectarian policy.

Meanwhile, the United States has stepped up its rhetoric against Syria, blaming Damascus for the new string of suicide bombings in Iraq and threatening unspecified international action if it fails to crack down on Islamic militants using its territory as a staging base.

"Innocent people are getting blown up in Iraq because Syria is allowing its territory to be used by terrorists bent on sowing murder and mayhem in Iraq and they're not going to succeed," Deputy State Department Spokesman Adam Ereli said Friday.

An Iraqi policeman inspects the site of a car bomb explosion in Baquba ?

AFP Ali Yussef

The international community was going to act "because Syria, more and more, is being recognized as a destabilizing element in the region," she added.

Syria had strongly denied having anything to do with the bombings in Iraq and expressed its willingness to cooperate with Washington and Baghdad on sealing the Syrian-Iraqi border.

A statement Thursday by the Syrian embassy in Washington expressed readiness "to do whatever it takes" to achieve this goal.

The United Nations said it expected Iraq's draft constitution to be printed and distributed to five million households after a final reading before parliament on Sunday.

The document, which is to be put to a referendum on October 15, was only agreed on Wednesday after months of tortuous negotiations, with many Sunnis saying it deprives them of wealth and Iraq of unity.


Sick Strategies - For Senseless Slaughter

The murderous fools are not trying to end the war; they're trying to keep it going as long as they can.

By John Kaminski

The cat is out of the bag now.

It happened quite by accident, as most revelations do. And it is seen by most of the world as the most revolting of the American/Israeli atrocities in the past few years, although it's hard to prioritize that claim because of the level and frequency of barbaric acts that are committed on a regular basis by those affluent automatons who call themselves the good guys.

Yet everyone but the comatose American populace - blinded by its Orwellian media and stupefied by its demented diet of physical and mental poisons – can see it.

So permit me to spell it out for those cowardly people who say they're living in the freest country on Earth, but absolutely refuse in their silent ignorance to see the blood they're spilling. No country that condones deliberate torture for any reason can ever be trusted.

The first hint came in Imad Khadduri's "A warning to car drivers" written in Arabic and posted on on May 11. The dispatch was quickly picked up by two of the most realistic and reliable news sites on the Web,, which I try to read every day, and, which I try to read every week, since it offers less breaking and more analytical news. I consider these two sites essential to keeping up with the real news of the world, and highly recommend that you monitor them, too.

Khadduri recounted a scam that opens up a clear window to seeing who is perpetrating all this inexplicable violence in Iraq. Beyond the American attempt to pacify an outraged and abused nation through demonic destruction, and beyond the Iraqi attempt to resist this totalitarian takeover by a foreign conqueror, there are more than numerous acts of violence that simply can't be understood by straightforward explanations.

I mean, when a mosque blows up and Americans blame Islamic terrorists, whether Sunni or Shiite, it makes no sense. Muslims never blow up their own houses of worship. Or when reporters sympathetic to either the Iraqi cause of freedom, or even just general principles of international justice, are suddenly assassinated and the blame is placed on often imaginary Islamic extremists whose perspective is supported by these writers, how can anyone believe that Muslims did it, even thought this is what the Zionist American press and government continue to insist.

So who's doing all these demented deeds? As if we didn't know ....

Khadduri's report went like this:

"A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license. The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car. He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour. At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him: 'OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs. Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing. Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license. At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed, who is waiting for you now. Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work".

The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.

The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated "hideous attack by foreign elements

The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver's license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives."

If this were the only example of this type I heard, I might have let it pass as just a story. But it wasn't.

There was also the sorry tale of the Iraqi man who saw American soldiers plant a bomb which shortly thereafter exploded, and when he said so out loud for all to hear, he was hauled away, never to be seen again.

This story was reported on arguably the most authentic and riveting source of news from Iraq, the heart-rending "Baghdad Burning: Girl Blog from Iraq," which is compiled by someone known only as Riverbend or Iraqi Girl

Again, recommended reading.

She recounts, "the last two weeks have been violent....

The number of explosions in Baghdad alone is frightening. There have also been several assassinations - bodies being found here and there. It's somewhat disturbing to know that corpses are turning up in the most unexpected places. Many people will tell you it's not wise to eat river fish anymore because they have been nourished on the human remains being dumped into the river. That thought alone has given me more than one sleepless night. It is almost as if Baghdad has turned into a giant graveyard.

The latest corpses were those of some Sunni and Shia clerics - several of them well-known. People are being patient and there is a general consensus that these killings are being done to provoke civil war. Also worrisome is the fact that we are hearing of people being rounded up by security forces (Iraqi) and then being found dead days later – apparently when the new Iraqi government recently decided to reinstate the death penalty, they had something else in mind.

But back to the explosions. One of the larger blasts was in an area called Ma'moun, which is a middle class area located in west Baghdad. It's a relatively calm residential area with shops that provide the basics and a bit more. It happened in the morning, as the shops were opening up for their daily business and it occurred right in front of a butcher's shop. Immediately after, we heard that a man living in a house in front of the blast site was hauled off by the Americans because it was said that after the bomb went off, he sniped an Iraqi National Guardsman.

I didn't think much about the story - nothing about it stood out: an explosion and a sniper - hardly an anomaly. The interesting news started circulating a couple of days later. People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.

The bombs are mysterious. Some of them explode in the midst of National Guard and near American troops or Iraqi Police and others explode near mosques, churches, and shops or in the middle of sougs. One thing that surprises us about the news reports of these bombs is that they are inevitably linked to suicide bombers. The reality is that some of these bombs are not suicide bombs - they are car bombs that are either being remotely detonated or maybe time bombs. All we know is that the techniques differ and apparently so do the intentions. Some will tell you they are resistance. Some say Chalabi and his thugs are responsible for a number of them. Others blame Iran and the SCIRI militia Badir.

In any case, they are terrifying. If you're close enough, the first sound is a that of an earsplitting blast and the sounds that follow are of a rain of glass, shrapnel and other sharp things. Then the wails begin - the shrill mechanical wails of an occasional ambulance combined with the wail of car alarms from neighboring vehicles. and finally the wail of people trying to sort out their dead and dying from the debris.

Then there was this one.

On May 13, 2005, a 64 years old Iraqi farmer, Haj Haidar Abu Sijjad, took his tomato load in his pickup truck from Hilla to Baghdad, accompanied by Ali, his 11 years old grandson. They were stopped at an American check point and were asked to dismount. An American soldier climbed on the back of the pickup truck, followed by another a few minutes later, and thoroughly inspected the tomato filled plastic containers for about 10 minutes. Haj Haidar and his grandson were then allowed to proceed to Baghdad.

A minute later, his grandson told him that he saw one of the American soldiers putting a grey melon size object in the back among the tomato containers. The Haj immediately slammed on the brakes and stopped the car at the side of the road, at a relatively far distance from the check point. He found a time bomb with the clock ticking tucked among his tomatoes. He immediately recognized it, as he was an ex-army soldier. Panicking, he grabbed his grandson and ran away from the car. Then, realizing that the car was his only means of work, he went back, took the bomb and carried it in fear. He threw it in a deep ditch by the side of the road that was dug by Iraqi soldiers in preparation for the war, two years ago.

Upon returning from Baghdad, he found out that the bomb had indeed exploded, killing three sheep and injuring their shepherd in his head. He thanked God for giving him the courage to go back and remove the bomb, and for the luck in that the American soldiers did not notice his sudden stop at a distance and his getting rid of the bomb.

"They intended it to explode in Baghdad and claim that it is the work of the 'terrorists', or 'insurgents' or who call themselves the 'Resistance'.

I decided to expose them and asked your reporter to take me to Baghdad to tell you the story. They are to be exposed as they now want to sow strife in Iraq and taint the Resistance after failing to defeat it militarily. Do not forget to mention my name. I fear nobody but God, as I am a follower of Muqtada al-Sadir."

The background and admission of guilt for such satanic shenanigans was clearly outlined in Frank Morales' piece on "The Provocateur State: Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi 'Insurgents' - and Global Terrorism," by Frank Morales clearly demonstrates how Donald Rumsfeld said he was going to do exactly what these three sorry episodes show he actually did.

Morales writes:

Back in 2002, following the trauma of 9-11, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld predicted there would be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. How could he be so sure of that? Perhaps because these attacks would be instigated on the order of the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld. According to Los Angeles Times military analyst William Arkin, writing Oct. 27, 2002, Rumsfeld set out to create a secret army, "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" network that would "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception," to stir the pot of spiraling global violence.

We never got the full story on those ghastly beheadings of Nick Berg and others. Nor have we ever understood who killed the American mercenaries in Fallujah that eventually precipitated one of the great slaughters in history. Nor have we ever been able to discern if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is actually a real person or just another bin Ladenesque boogeyman. Nor if the al-Qaeda website which claims responsibility for various atrocities is not really run by the CIA.

Provoking this type of violence also further conceals the sinister genocide the Israelis continue to perpetrate on the hapless Palestinians, which is exactly its point, as is the entire Iraq invasion and destruction, and as was the inside job mass murder on 9/11 in New York City. The purpose of all these despicable acts is to conceal what the Israelis and the Americans have been doing all along to the entire Arab world, namely enslaving and destroying it.

There is not now nor ever was an Arab terror threat. That was all invented by Rothschild, Rockefeller, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Bush, Cheney, Sharon, Zakheim, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and Warren Buffett. These people are all traitors to not only their countries but to humanity in general, and should all be slammed and RICOed into Guantanamo immediately.

And so should the government officials, media lackeys, and ordinary citizens who, by their complicity or their ignorance, support them.

The main point in understanding these deliberate provocations to prevent peace is to understand how the American capitalist system, now hijacked by billionaires with no trace of conscience, thrives on war and profits from the misery of others.

The neocon murder menace has been for months ratcheting up the hyperbole about why we need to invade Iran - which some predict will happen in June - and just this week, rumors of troop movements in the Caribbean and lockdowns at Florida military bases appear to augur an imminent invasion of oil-producing Venezuela.

The overall plan is to create hell on Earth, and we are succeeding. By our silent complicity and cowardly reluctance to oppose and stop this homicidal behavior in the name of profit, we are all accessories to mass murder and the destruction of human society, not to even mention the extinction of individual human freedom and the God-given right to be safe and secure in the homes of our choice.

So now that you know, what are you going to do about it? You know if you do nothing, these same things will one day happen to you.

John Kaminski is a writer whose Internet essays are seen on hundreds of websites around the world. These stories have been compiled into two anthologies, "America's Autopsy Report" and "The Perfect Enemy." In addition, he has written "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," a booklet written for those who still believe the government's cynical lies about that tragic day.

All three books are available at


The Nazionistic Thugs

Israeli Advisors - Too Close For Comfort

Israel suspected in Iraqi ambushes

What is Casey doing with Zeevi as an advisor ?

General Zeevi Israeli Intelligence Chief ?

General Casey US Commander ?

Bush, under advice from his Neo-con handlers, sent US officers to Israel to train with the IDF to prepare for Iraq. Now we learn the IDF is fighting within our ranks in Iraq.

A number of officers are questioning whether we have a fifth column operating behind the lines. There have been too many sophisticated ambushes, and the enemy seems to know every move isolated patrols make.

After Blackwater Security was ambushed twice, they want no part of any Israelis.

AIPAC and JINSA advised Bush on suitable Generals for our Iraq invasion, and our troops are paying the price.

The Neocons Who Got Us Into Iraq ?

Dov Zakheim ?

Interlocking Relationships Of Washington Zionist

Interlocking relationships of Neocons

An elite group of Zionist Jews inter-marry and infest our government. They called themselves Neocons and their sole purpose is directing US policy. Most are dual citizens and none served in the US military.

They want to start a draft for women.

Tommy Franks

What was Tommy Franks doing there?

Franks is a second-generation grandson of Russian Jews. He is a staunch Zionist who ok'ed the looting of the Baghdad museum, barb wiring of villages, snipers and massive air power.

General Natonski?

Gen. Richard F. Natonski, the commander who led the 'Massacre of Fallujah', is a second generation Ukrainian Jew and a rabid Zionist.

Gen Natonski said: ... "Fallujah is a cancer. The Muslims use Mosques, and schools, to ambush Marines from. In almost every single mosque, in Fallujah, we've found an arms cache and IED factories."

Colonel Noam Tivon

US Officers trained in Israel

Israel set up two mock cities with mosques,?and they convinced Marines that mosques were a solid military target..
Marines storm ashore in Gaza

In joint maneuvers, hundreds of US Marines riding hovercrafts stormed ashore the beaches of Nitzanim, Israel. Arab hatred now focuses on the US.

Imbedded Israelis direct most tactics in Iraq

The shooting of journalists, massive bombing of civilians, checkpoint massacres, et cetera. Abu Ghraib is a carbon copy of the infamous Israeli?Khiam Prison in southern Lebanon. Snipers shooting children, Fallujah massacre, assassination squads, are also all Israeli trademark techniques.

Israelis advise Marines to used bulldozers on houses, to hide the death toll in Fallujah. Identical to Jenin.?

800 IDF fought with US Marines

Colonel Ygal Sharon was rumored to be the commander of 800 Israelis in Fallujah.

"Americans tend to be naive about the sophistication of Muslim fighters, and were grateful for Israeli partners."

Mossad backs Kurds

There are 60,000 Jews among the Kurd's leaders, and they want an independent state, Kurdistan, which just happens to sit on the world's largest oil deposits The leader of the Kurds, is a Jewish billionaire named Massoud Barzani, who has a massive Kurd militia that is funded by the CIA.

Abu Ghraib prison ?

Israeli psychological warfare operatives, dressed in US military uniforms, controlled the prison and gave orders to American soldiers working in the prison.

The credibility of the American fighting man and woman, has suffered an indelible scar worldwide, thanks to the control that the Israelis were given at Abu Ghraib.

"By way of deception"

We elected Bush, a Zionist puppet with a Messiah complex, and he has put a group of Jewish Zionist Generals, in charge of Iraq, whose first loyalty is to Israel,. These generals allow the IDF to be embedded internally with the US army, and have access to all military data. Our troops are involved in ambush after ambush by Mossad /Al Qaeda, and no one is the wiser. Operation Matador is a perfect example.

Israel engineers an ambush, and sits back while Marines level a village. The Sunnis think Shiites are blowing up their Mosques, and Shiites think Sunnis are blowing up their schools.

Mossad operatives plant bombs on Blackwater Security helicopters, British transport planes, inside US mess halls, and point the blame at Arabs. The internet is drenched with videos of beheadings of American truck drivers and Japanese translators, which only benefit Israel.



Friday, September 16, 2005

Blackwell’s Un-American Scheme:

Under the Guise of “Character and Civic Renewal”Ohio State Foists a Religious Moral Code upon Its Citizens

by Katherine Yurica
September 13, 2005

With links to a Glossary of dictionary termsand links to UncommonSense in parallel columns, annotated by Katherine Yurica

The Challenge and the War

There are two Dominionist quotes that I’ve run across recently that have stunned me by their audacity, by the sheer visionary power they proclaim and by the weight of their impact upon our country should they ever succeed. I’ve quoted them before, both in other essays on our web site and in presentations at conferences. But I want to call them to my readers’ attention once again. This time, because I now see how Dominionists can accomplish what they say they intend to do. The first quote is from Dr. James Kennedy, Pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida. He prepared his statement carefully in writing for distribution at his “Reclaim America” Conference,[1] in February 2005:

“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost, as the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”[2]

The second quote is from a textbook for home-schooled children. The book introduces itself this way: “In America’s Providential History, we examine the history of America from a Christian perspective. Since God is the author of history and He is carrying out His plan in the earth through history, any view of the history of America, or any country, that ignores God is not true history. He is Sovereign over His creation and ‘His Story.’”[3] Thus the authors, Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, unabashedly claim to be writing God’s view of the history of the United States of America and damn the necessity for facts! So not surprising in their introduction they spell out their purpose:

“The goal of America’s Providential History is to equip Christians to be able to introduce Biblical principles into the public affairs of America, and every nation in the world, and in so doing bring Godly change throughout the world. We will be learning how to establish a Biblical form (and power) of government in America and we will see how our present governmental structures must be changed. Since the principles we will be learning are valid in every society and in any time in history, they will be able to be applied throughout the world and not just in America. As we learn to operate nations on Biblical principles, we will be bringing liberty to the nations of the world and hence fulfilling part of God’s plan for the nations.” From America’s Providential History by Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell.[4]

The question I have had is: How on earth do dominionists expect to accomplish these things? An unsuspected vehicle for dominionism has turned out to be “Civic Renewal,” a term that describes both the diminished participation in civic duties by citizens over the last thirty-five years and the ways citizens can be encouraged to become more involved in their civic responsibilities again. (Perhaps the most famous article published on the topic is Robert D. Putnam's “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America,” published by The American Prospect.) But today, what we are about to discover is a secret that has been operating “under the radar,” in Ralph Reed’s jargon, for at least ten years. It’s been done openly, but without the spot light of attention focused on it. It’s not been a topic between housewives and their neighbors nor is it the kind of thing co-workers focus on around the coffee table on the job. After all, there’s nothing alarming about Civic Renewal. It’s a good idea. It has plenty of bipartisan support. And, quite frankly, it’s rather a dull subject. So what’s the problem?

To a lot of people, civic renewal means the opportunity to not only religionize our government, but, as we shall see, to create a new religion that is decidedly not Christianity. Instead, it is an opportunity to convert our citizens into docile followers of a new authoritarian rule.[5]

Clearly dominionism must be fought in every possible way: on the constitutional grounds of separation of church and state; on the political grounds that it is authoritarian and anti-democratic; on the economic grounds that it is based on greed and materialism[6] which seeks to establish marketing states,[7] (that resemble feudalism,[8] are fueled by expansion of empire through any means including war[9]); and on the religious grounds that it is a new state-imposed religion, (alien to the teachings of Jesus—and in fact, is so anti-Christian that it seeks to destroy Christianity.)

Enter Ohio’s Secretary of State

J. Kenneth Blackwell has stepped to the forefront of the American culture wars. Standing with his feet securely rooted in a form of Orwellian “Double-Think,” he has posted his official endorsement of a 20-point religious moral code claimed to be “a shared vocabulary of character-building ethics” on Ohio’s official Secretary of State web site. Blackwell wrote, “Character is the cornerstone of American citizenship. And good citizenship is the foundation of community. It is also the foundation of both good business and good government.” (Note that he places business before government.)

The 20-Rules to “good” character is titled “UncommonSense”[10] which Blackwell recommends “as a character ethics model for Ohio’s business and government leaders.” Blackwell invites candidates for office to join him in launching “a revolution of character-building in our great state.”

Blackwell speaks candidly. It is a revolution in a deceptively pretty package. Hidden in its paragraphs are concepts of submission, obedience, inspection of the personal lives of people, and the loss of personal rights and freedom that would make America’s founding fathers stand on their heads in their graves. In short it is a Dominionist document: a religious treatise in secular terms, but dominionist to the core. It’s a brilliant little package to get millions of evangelical Christians and their friends to accept authoritarian government without even a whisper of protest.

It’s so deceptively written that people of other faiths or avowed atheists won’t know they are accepting religious tenets—that in fact it is a rational interpretation of some Christian ethics and as such it’s nothing less than a concise theological document in drag. Christians, however, will “know” it’s “Christian” because the unknown authors of the little tract[11] have salted the mine with recognizable terms and barely disguised Bible verses.

There is a strategic reason the authors wanted Christians to believe it is a “Christian” document—the authors had to send signals over the heads of most of America’s citizens in order to reach the faithful evangelicals –so they would feel comfortable in embracing it. But the authors also had to walk a fine line—they could not present a religious document from the State of Ohio to its citizens without violating the Constitution of the United States of America. Hence the subterfuge.

What I intend to show you is that J. Kenneth Blackwell and many of the GOP leaders from Ohio and many others in Congress, necessarily know the truth about the religious moral code titled UncommonSense, and how civic renewal has been used and diverted from its original intent. They know that it is a covert way to impose certain religious beliefs upon American citizens using governmental powers. They know that they are in the process of religionizing America and also dominating it. They know it just as they know the sound and rhythm of familiar Bible verses. They know it like they know the prickly feeling on the back of their necks when they hear strains of down-home Gospel singing hitting their ears and hearts. They know it because they planned it.

First, to get an idea of the intent of the Ohio State legislators, let’s look at the resolution passed by the Ohio General Assembly, Concurrent Resolution 28.

The Ohio State Resolution

The resolution seeks federal funding for character education and program development under the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,” specifically provided for by Congress in Section 5431 of the “No Child Left Behind Act.” The Ohio Resolution recognizes the State of Ohio to be “a character-building state.” As such, Ohio promises to encourage “the advancement of positive character qualities in state government, in city, township, and county governments, in the media, and in schools, businesses, community groups, worship centers, and homes; and by urging the citizens and civic and community leaders of this state to mutually pursue character as a vital leadership and citizenship priority.”

But how did the state arrive at the specific moral standards it chose to exemplify? Cleverly Ohio’s General Assembly asserts: we’re “recognizing the importance of fostering citizens with character qualities that are based upon the moral standards exemplified by our nation’s founders and with which they established our nation and legal system.” They of course do not list those moral standards—since our founders owned slaves and didn’t Thomas Jefferson violate some biblical standards as well? But let’s not quarrel with Ohio’s legislators over this—at least not at the moment.

The fascinating thing about the resolution is its condemnatory attitude, and its implication that all the problems in our society can be fixed through the application of a life-changing moral code:

“Whereas, Individual irresponsibility and lack of commitment to moral principles results in an increasing number of family problems that have personal, social, and financial consequences not only for individual family members, but also for this state and society as a whole; and

“Whereas, If people increasingly fail to demonstrate positive character qualities and if they make wrong moral choices, the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this state are endangered, resulting in a financial burden upon the taxpayers of this state for increased cost of law enforcement; and (Emphasis added.)

“Whereas, Many current societal problems will be alleviated when more of the citizens of this state exemplify in their lives positive character qualities that distinguish between right and wrong…”

At this point, one cannot help think that the legislative body was drooling in anticipation of a time when everyone can undergo the life-changing character-building transformation that will produce a perfect society of citizens who will all be unified in their unity and oneness, and who will all do only that which is right and forsake all that is wrong.

For if character changes can end crime, wouldn’t compulsory character building courses produce a reformed society? The question then becomes what moral offenses should society be saved from? Who will determine what is moral and what is immoral behavior? Should smoking cigarettes, for example, be considered immoral as it costs society huge amounts in health costs? Should the immoral smokers have to pay society back as a form of punishment? (Or should the punishment be some form of banishment from living in certain communities, coupled with the loss of voting rights, until the offender learns not to smoke anymore?) I raise this because Dominionists have outlined such plans and even worse.[12] And dare I mention the sexual sin of adultery that seems to plague our churches, pastors, legislators and the nation?

Lastly, Ohio State’s resolution contemplates not only building good character among youths, but the state is worried about employee productivity which the state wants to correct:

“Whereas, Encouraging employees to recognize positive character qualities has resulted in an increase in workplace ethics, employee safety, and organizational performance; and

“Whereas, An emphasis upon positive character qualities in every sector of society can only occur as institutions and individuals mutually commit themselves to exemplify positive character qualities in their public and personal lives and to collaborate with one another to establish character as a foundational community asset…” (Emphasis added.)

In signing off on this resolution, Ohio joined six other states who are known to have become “States of Character.” According to the Character Training Institute States of Character are: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Ohio. The state of Ohio can look upon itself as a pioneer among the states. Ken Blackwell can think of himself as a leader in the America of tomorrow. The question is, exactly what kind of citizen is Mr. Blackwell and his supporters trying to create?

Deciphering the Religious Moral Code: First Sentence

In making this discussion as simple as possible, let’s take a look at UncommonSense, and the first character trait the State of Ohio wants to instill in its citizens. Rule 1 reads in part:

“1. SEEKING WISDOM: Ethical or high-character people courageously seek something greater than intelligence or knowledge (knowing what is); they seek wisdom (knowing what is right or true).”

As I read this sentence, I did a double-take. On the surface it looks innocuous and completely unrelated to religion. But the first thing that struck me was its similarity to a Theological Virtue, which is defined as a noun in the dictionary:

“One of the three basic spiritual graces: faith, hope, and charity often held in Christian ethics to be created by God in the redeemed man and to perfect the natural virtues by giving them harmony and fulfillment in the service of God—called also supernatural virtue.” (All quotes in this essay are from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary)

But in thinking about the first character trait as it is written, I sensed the presence of problems and contradictions. To clarify the existence of problems and to solve them, I wound up creating a glossary of dictionary defined terms with hyperlinks to and from the text of Ohio’s UncommonSense, which allows my readers to follow the steps I took. Obviously, with more than 90 definitions, I can’t state them all here, but the resource is only a link away and is worth a little study!

Most of us would think we know the definitions of these words. Christians in particular would grasp that the sentence is talking about something higher than man’s intelligence—and that would automatically mean “God.” Probably at first blush, most Christians would have no problem with the sentence.

The text, however, has two significant qualifiers in it: First, the author’s ideal ethical or high character people seek something greater than “intelligence or knowledge.” Since knowledge means the sum total of what is known: “the whole body of truth, fact, [and] information…” the text expressly excludes not only all facts but how we apprehend knowledge. The text does this by the insertion of a fascinating restrictive clause that says wisdom is something greater than knowing what is. So instead of factual knowledge and truth, ethical people are said to seek wisdom which is defined by the words “knowing what is right or true.” In other words, wisdom is limited in meaning to only moral issues. This leads to the conclusion that a man can be educated but not be wise, which in turn fits nicely with certain bible verses that were often used in some churches to bolster the uneducated Christian’s ego in a way to make him feel superior to the educated.[13]

At this point we have just begun to find out what the author or authors intend. We’ve got a definition of wisdom that boils down to two words. Let’s start with the word “true.” When we look up “true” in the dictionary, we are told to eliminate any definitions that conform to fact or reason, when we do so, we arrive at essentially this definition: “what is honest, just or upright.” Set those words aside for now because they will come up again.

We still have to repeat the process for the second word in the author’s restrictive clause, the word, “right.” We find that it means:

“Disposed to do what is just, good or proper.”

Now, if we should look up the word “just” and eliminate those definitions that conform to fact or reason, we’re left with this:

“Conforming to some standard of correctness”

In addition, the word contains not only a decidedly religious concept, but an extremely important one: Just means:

“Righteous before God.”

In fact there is a famous Bible verse that automatically comes to my mind when I hear a sentence with the words “Just people.” The verse is: “The just shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:11).

(I wasn’t surprised that in Rule 6 of Ohio’s religious moral code, the author manages to repeat the phrase “Just people” three times in four sentences—and each time I read those phrases, I heard, “The just shall live by faith,” The just shall live by faith. It goes to show that Sunday School has a way of sticking to a person for life.)

But let’s continue with the series of words. When we look up the word “good,” we find definitions that say “conforming to a certain ideal or standard of morality or virtue: wholly commendable” or “something that satisfies or commends itself to the ethical consciousness or is conceived as fitting in the moral order of the universe.” And finally we arrive at this definition: “something that is either an end in itself or a means to such an end.”[14]

At this point we have effectively and exhaustively eliminated any definition of wisdom that is synonymous with accumulated information or knowledge or scientific learning or having to do with the “intelligent application of learning.” So what is left?

We are left with Webster’s Third New International Dictionary’s primary (that is the first) definition of wisdom:

“The effectual mediating principle or personification of God’s will in the creation of the world.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is a religious statement. But it is not Christian. (It is not Christian because it expressly excludes two attributes of God: knowledge and understanding ((or intelligence)) both of which, according to scripture were used by God in framing the universe.[15]) So the Ohio State religious moral code deviates from traditional Christianity and Judaism. The question is why?

What seems likely is that the authors wanted to establish that wisdom is the personification of God’s will, but they couldn’t say this openly for the simple reason that a government cannot foist its concept of God upon its citizens. So the authors hid it—knowing that no one but an addicted-analytical-investigative-Christian would look up all those words to find out exactly what they mean!

Deciphering the Religious Moral Code: First Heading: “Truth”

It appears I’ve got things somewhat out of order here, but I didn’t want to address the first heading until I gave you a sense of my methodology. The heading reads, “The Critical Importance of Truth.” In fact, the coded text begins to deal with the word truth in the second and third sentences of Rule 1, which read in part:

Wisdom must logically culminate in the identification of conscience-convicting truth to be intellectually honest. Hence, the relentless pursuit of truth, its source and its compelling advocacy is the moral objective of ethical, character-building people.” (Emphasis added)

Now that we know that Wisdom is the “personification of God’s Will” we can see the authors want to invest it with the power of truth also. But the exclusionary clauses are not placed here; instead we are told that high-character people are involved in a “relentless pursuit of truth, but that is insufficient for Ohio, the authors require a relentless pursuit of something other than truth—they require the pursuit of truth’s source, and its advocacy.” What is the source of truth? Who originates it? If truth has a source, the authors must be referring to the author of truth. But who is the author of truth? Most Christians would say, “God.” In fact, one of the definitions of the word “source,” is God. Once again in the very first rule of Ohio’s religious moral code, the authors use another word that means “God.”

But that’s not all, what is the “advocacy” of truth that it should be pursued? Advocacy is a profession and the word advocate is defined by the dictionary as: “one that pleads the cause of another: defender” and the dictionary quotes the Bible: “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ--1 John 2:1 AV.” This is another famous Bible verse that is very familiar to most Christians.

Okay, let’s look up the word “truth” just to make sure of its definition:

Truth n. “2: something that is true or held to be true: a (1): the real state of affairs: something that is the case: FACT (2) the body of things, events, and facts that make up the universe: actual existence: ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized: a fundamental or spiritual reality conceived of as being partly or wholly transcendent of perceived actuality and experience 3 a: relationship, conformity, or agreement with fact or reality or among true facts or propositions: the property in a conception, judgment, statement, proposition, belief, or opinion of being in accord with what is in fact or in necessity.” (Emphasis mine.)

So according to the authors of the religious/moral code, the word truth has the following attributes:

1. Truth is conscience convicting.
2. Truth is something that should be pursued relentlessly.
3. Truth has a source, which also should be pursued relentlessly.
4. Truth is a “compelling advocate,” which also should be pursued relentlessly.

As a Christian, I agree with these statements. They are biblical. For instance for the first proposition that Truth is conscience convicting, I think of one of the most moving and powerful stories in the Bible. The story of the woman who was caught in the act of adultery and was brought to Jesus as a test. The law said she should be stoned to death, what did Jesus tell the hypocrites who demanded the death penalty? The account in John 8:9 shows that Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her…And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one…” When Jesus looked up he asked the woman, “Where are those thine accusers?” She responded, “No man, Lord.” And “Jesus said unto her, ‘Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more.’” (Emphasis added.)

For the second proposition that truth should be pursued relentlessly, we need look no further than the Book of Genesis and examine the epistemological fall of man. I’ve written about it in my essay What the Fundamentalists Won’t Tell You About the Bible. I wrote in part:

“A lie therefore contradicts reality and creates delusions. Death is necessarily the natural offspring of lies! Let’s understand what I have said. Whenever we believe a lie, we have made ourselves ill—ill of mind, soul, spirit and body. We have separated ourselves from Reality. Delusions, falsity and superstition separate us not only from God (ultimate reality) but from life and health! This is as true today as it was in the Garden of Eden.”
For the third proposition, that Truth has a source which should be pursued relentlessly, I refer you to my commentary under “Truth” in the Glossary:

“I would add Deut. 32:4 (KJV) “a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” And I would add: see John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life.” And see John 14: 17, where Jesus states he will ask the Father to send “Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive” as the Comforter. See John 15:26 where Jesus makes it clear “I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father…”

For the fourth proposition, that Truth is a compelling advocate, one need look no further than the passage I quoted above from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary in which, 1 John 2: 1 is quoted to clarify the meaning and the usage of the word.

Advocate n. “1: one that pleads the cause of another: defender (we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ—1 John 2:1 AV.)”

Is God Truth?

Because this essay is trying to show that Ohio’s ethics code is a religious document, I want to quote from an earlier work of mine—still unpublished—but which in a few sentences outlines why I think the Bible presents God as Truth and why I think the authors of Ohio’s moral code are correct:

“I find the most profound significance in the fact that the Bible presents God as Truth: this is a perception that is too often ignored or disregarded by modern writers. The two pertinent definitions that are interplayed here are: (1) God is defined as the supreme or ultimate reality; and (2) truth is the correspondence of statements to the facts they describe.

“When we examine the Old Testament scriptures we find that God identified Himself with Truth by definition. When He was asked by Moses to verify His identity, He said “I Am That I Am.” His name YHWH, (pronounced in English as Lord or Adonay), literally means: He that Is who He Is. If we look carefully at this structure we can see that the statement that describes God’s existence, “I Am,” corresponds to the reality or fact of God’s existence, “that I Am.” Since truth by definition is correspondence to reality, we learn first that God is Truth in His inherent nature. We learn secondly that his words are truth; and thirdly, we learn that the reverse is true: ultimate reality (i.e. God) is correspondence to ultimate Truth. Moreover, since the statement I Am that I Am implies an active doing and being, we derive the knowledge that God is the way or method, the truth and the life (cf. John 14:6).

“The Old Testament confirms that God is ultimate Truth in many passages. In Jeremiah 10:10, for example, the Hebrew word emeth, meaning truth is translated dynamically in the Amplified Bible: “But the Lord is the true God and the God of truth—the God Who is truth. He is the living God, and the everlasting King.” And the fact that the words, the statements, and the laws of God are truth is confirmed by Psalms 119:142, 151. Moreover, the New Testament explicitly and repeatedly states that God is synonymous with Truth: John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 5:7; Cf. also John 14:6, John 17:17 and John 1:1.

“Centuries of Christian writers have acknowledged this intrinsic nature of God. St. Augustine’s passionate thirst for knowledge of God culminated in his realization that Truth was a synonym for Him. In his Confessions he wrote: “…Thee only (who truly art Truth)…O Truth, Truth, how inwardly did even then the marrow of my soul pant after Thee….Thee Thyself, the Truth, in whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning…”

After this reading, you may well ask, why I find Ohio’s religious moral code so offensive. Because a State cannot impose religious teachings upon its citizens in the United States of America! Even if it is advantageous for the state to do so! This code does not represent “civic renewal” it represents a “civic religion.” Let’s go on to one or two more rules of the twenty that illustrate the code is not entirely benevolent! I should point out that I have links to the glossary on all twenty steps in parallel column form. On one side, the text is exactly as it appears on the Ohio State web site. On the other side, the text has defined terms inserted in some cases and links to the glossary on all important terms.

By clicking on the various terms that are linked to the glossary, one can see just how many terms come from the Bible and are common in the evangelical churches—the entire code is based upon biblical terminology.

Accountability and Dependence, Surveillance and Scrutiny

But let’s go to Ohio State’s religious moral code and examine Rule 7, the rule on “Accountability.” We use the term most frequently when discussing government officials, elected representatives, corporation executives, and particularly for people who hold positions in which they are responsible for other people’s money. No one would argue that those in positions of trust must not be held accountable. But Ken Blackwell’s code uses the word “accountability” to focus away from officials and turn the spot light on ordinary Americans who are seeking guidance. The new religious moral code seeks to make citizens dependent upon others. Moreover, Blackwell’s code represents a new and morally deceptive intrusion into the lives of every Ohio resident. In fact, the authors of the code turn the word into an excuse for spying on others. As such, it is a perversion of the scriptures and of American’s civil and moral duty to hold our leaders accountable. Here’s Rule 7:

“7. ACCOUNTABILITY: High-character people scrutinize themselves and welcome the scrutiny of others. They acknowledge that human nature compels us toward independence. Our preference for independence results in isolation from one another. Isolation breeds temptation to unethical conduct. High character people resist this chain reaction by adopting transparent life--and work--styles that invite inspection. They place themselves in relationships that motivate self-examination and encourage constructive critique from others, particularly those they serve. (Observable Virtues: an open, up-front, disclosing spirit)” (Emphasis added.)

Let me make it clear that I am not questioning the fact that mature adults have learned to take responsibility for their own actions. This is an essential step in the maturation of every human being. Nor am I taking issue with the spiritual and psychological necessity of self examination. Without personal soul searching, spiritual growth and maturity is impossible.

What appears astonishing to me here is turning over one’s own responsibility to others. It can be seen in the use of the words:

“They welcome the scrutiny of others…invite inspection…They place themselves in relationships that …encourage…critique from others…”

Moreover, the words “scrutinize” and “scrutiny,” mean close observation, examination and attention to minute details, investigation and surveillance by others. These are not terms of a free society for free citizens. To the contrary, this is a rule that leads to the complete domination of a people. This rule implies that there is no right of privacy and that government and men may probe freely into the lives of all Ohio residents. By the way, the assumption that isolation breeds temptation to unethical conduct is refuted by the very fact that corporations in 2001 defrauded California and its citizens of billions of dollars in the Energy Scam of the century and they did it collectively and in tandem with other energy companies. (And some, like Ken Lay, have not yet been brought to the bar of justice.)

Let’s look at the subtle ways religious beliefs are embedded in this rule again. The sentence reads:

“They [high character people] acknowledge that human nature compels us toward independence.”

The real question is why do “high character people” acknowledge that statement to be true? Couldn’t human nature be equally propelled toward dependence and immaturity? Could it be that the model for “high character people” is none other than the biblical regenerated Christian? Could it be that the New Testament epistles describe man in his natural state to be depraved or unregenerated? And that before men became Christians they were described in the Bible to be “by nature the children of wrath,”[16] but once divinely regenerated, they became partakers of the Divine nature.”[17]

So could that be the reason that only “high character people” acknowledge that “human nature” is predisposed to a lower form of being? That only “high character Christians” believe that man in his nature is in a depraved condition? And that since the Bible connects sin and depravity to a preference for lawlessness,[18] and lawlessness in turn is by definition a form of liberal freedom to do as one pleases, is it not probable that Ohio’s religious moral code is equating concepts of liberty, freedom and independence with freedom from constraints in order to sin? Biblically, “freedom” and “independence” can be very bad terms, and I submit, the authors of Ohio’s religious moral code are fully aware of this. But more than that—I submit that the code is an attempt to drive American citizens into a pliable state of dependence upon their leaders who will tell them what they can and can’t do and this Rule 7 is psychologically designed to do just that!

There’s another problem in this rule: the authors attempt to establish scrutiny of individuals by groups by not only asserting unverified statements as facts, but by making it appear as if they are presenting a logical statement, that cannot be refuted. Let’s look at the premises:

Human nature compels people toward independence. [Does it?]
Independence results in isolation. [Does it?]
Isolation breeds unethical conduct. [Does it?]

The problem is of course the proposed solution doesn’t logically follow no matter how we try to divide the sentences into logical formats. The solution reads:

“High character people resist this chain reaction by adopting transparent life - and work-styles that invite inspection. They place themselves in relationships that motivate self-examination and encourage constructive critique from others…” (Emphasis added.)

This solution implies the ideal “high character person” strives to be submissive to others—and note these “others” are not designated professional psychologists or others trained in counseling. The sentence merely requires the high character person to place himself in relationships with unknown others to be scrutinized and critiqued: it implies that “others” know best—which in and of itself leads to dependence upon those others for guidance in conduct and thought. This idea is reiterated in Rule 18, which requires reliance on others for counsel. So the two rules have a double whammy effect.[19]

This instruction is the antithesis of those who so bravely were seeking Truth in Rule 1! It is the opposite of the Christian ideal but beware, there are plenty of scriptures in the New Testament that can be used to support a drastic cultural change—a change to the acceptance of concepts such as suppression, slavery and “submission.” One comes readily to mind: “Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”[20] But by what power or authority does the state of Ohio seek to impose submission to inspection and critiques by others upon its population as a high ethical rule of life?

Respect and Depravity

Rule 8 fits hand in hand with Rule 7 because the authors have chosen to introduce the term “depravity” in their description of mankind and also openly cite the Golden Rule from Matthew 7:13 and Luke 6:31 as a concept having the power to “convict” and causing conviction, (“the state of being convinced of and repentant for one’s sin.”) Let’s see how Ohio State’s religious moral code divides mankind in Rule 8, quoted in part here:

“8. RESPECT: High-character people treat others as they would want to be treated. They have an accurate view of the human condition; namely that every person is capable of both dignified and depraved conduct….Respect leads diverse people to value the dignity of others while having the liberty to passionately disagree with their opinions (opinions that can be influenced by our depravity.”) Emphasis added.

The question here is how does one passionately disagree with another’s opinion and still maintain respect for that individual? This is especially true when the opinion the high character person passionately disagrees with is influenced by the other’s “depravity.” I will argue that the term “respect” means by definition “esteemed” and “honored” and one does not esteem a person one “passionately disagrees with.” And one cannot esteem a person whose views are influenced by his depravity. Depravity is a religious word. It means:

“The quality or state of being depraved; specifically: the state of sinfulness natural to unregenerate man.”

And the word “depraved” means:

“marked by debasement, corruption, perversion, or deterioration.”

These qualities are not admirable and are the antithesis of traits most people “respect.” What the Rule does describe, is the division of mankind into regenerated and unregenerated people. It wrongly establishes two classes of Americans: those that are “Christians” and those that are not! These are religious terms and it is inappropriate for a state of the union to adopt these concepts or to be teaching its residents such religious beliefs.

Speaking With One Voice

During a five day broadcast week called “Seven Days Ablaze,” (September 16-20, 1985) Pat Robertson returned again and again to the theme that America must have “unity of thought.”

On September 19, 1985 Pat Robertson blasted pluralism on his national television show, the 700 Club, saying, “Today there are no absolutes. There is no standard. And when that happens you have what is laughingly called ‘pluralism.’ The Greeks were constantly debating. They were trying one religion, they were trying another, they were trying discourse, and they were trying another. And what happened in their society is they began to be fragmented because they couldn’t agree on which was the philosophy to choose.”

The very next day, on September 20, 1985, he began his dialogue, “Why don’t we agree? Why don’t we pray together that God will touch the hearts of the people that there might be unity. Because a house divided against itself cannot stand. But if you’re together, there’s just no end to the things you can do.” Mr. Robertson and the religious right have never ceased their drumbeat for Americans to speak with one voice.

Apparently, Ken Blackwell and the Ohio State legislators have taken the first step to help Pat Robertson’s prayer along. The religious moral code urged by Ohio has a new rule: Rule 12 which reads:

“12. UNITY: High-character people strive to build relationships that foster oneness among others who are bound with them to a common promise, mission or purpose. Ethical organizations seek uniformity in their people's shared character ethics and unity among their otherwise richly diverse people. Without a persevering commitment to shared character ethics, there is no hope for sustainable unity. (Observable Virtue: reconciler)” (Emphasis added.)

The answer to Pat Robertson’s prayer appears to have arrived in Rule 12: everyone must join in a persevering commitment to shared character ethics in order to sustain “unity.” If you read that to mean shared religious principles of behavior—you’ve got the message. The rule implies that no one but high character people or “ethical” organizations seek uniformity. If pluralism is a value you treasure—then you must not be ethical and you must not have “high character.” Once again the rule divides—it does not unite. Uniformity of opinion, oneness, and sameness—is not a virtue, but a vice. A vice that requires individuals to compromise truth. It demands self censorship. Under what authority does the State of Ohio impose this religious moral code upon its citizens?

Honoring Authority

In America, we have consistently believed in the rule of law. The most famous exposition of the principle was drafted by John Adams for the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in justification of the principle of separation of powers:

In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First, art. XXX (1780).

The last phrase, "to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men," has been quoted with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court and every state supreme court in the United States.

The idea that we are ruled by laws and not by men is subtle. For there is no question that laws are made by legislative bodies that consist of men and women. But it is the law we respect and honor and not the people who made the law. We may, in fact, disagree with a law, but we still acknowledge the law.

Ohio’s religious moral code introduces a subtle change to this concept. It introduces a biblical concept requiring citizens to show a high regard or appreciation to authorities in power, Webster’s says the word honoring means “to pay tribute to: to exalt, praise.” But it also requires citizens to yield to the authorities in power. Let’s read Rule 14:

14. HONORING AUTHORITY: All people are imperfect, requiring boundaries for behavior. High-character people willingly yield to the authority of those who are charged with upholding those boundaries. They help shape and then abide by the legitimate laws, rules and boundaries established by legitimate authorities and strive to live within those boundaries for the betterment of all people. When those given authority violate conscience-convicting character ethics, high-character people take wise action to justly hold them accountable. (Observable Virtues: yieldedness, submission / “aligned with the mission”) Emphasis added.

This Rule is peculiar because of the choice of words. Most everyone understands what a law is, but it is really unclear what the authors mean by “boundaries,” even after one has consulted the dictionary. The term appears to be something broader than a law. In fact, “boundaries” appear to be something separate from “legitimate laws and rules” inasmuch as laws and rules are distinguished from it, nevertheless, “legitimate authorities” appear to have established “boundaries.” It’s possible that the authors intend this code—this list of twenty religious moral rules—to become equivalent to the laws of a state. If so, they have taken pains to obscure that fact. But consider the possibility the authors believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and its epistles to the religious communities of 2,000 years ago to be applicable to citizens of Ohio and the U.S. today.

Consider that the epistles limited human “Christian” behavior, setting boundaries on what is acceptable in the eyes of God and what is not, calling certain sexual acts beastial and requiring women (and slaves) to be submissive, to be quiet, to be unadorned plus many other requirements. Now consider the possibility the authors of UncommonSense intend all these prohibitions or “boundaries” to be applicable as the equivalent to the laws of Ohio and the United States of America. Perhaps that will give a clearer understanding of why the authors have created a third category of “boundaries” that go beyond the “laws and rules” of the land. And it appears that this Rule requires all “high character” people to yield or hand over their moral control to another!

Let’s look at the definition of the word yield. Webster reads in part:

Yield, vb. “2: to give or render as fitting, rightfully owed, or required; 5: f: to hand over or resign to the moral control of another: give to another the political, economic, or social direction of: RELINQUISH 6 b (1) to admit the validity or cogency of: consent, agree; vi 2: to give up and cease resistance or contention: as a: to surrender and concede being defeated, vanquished, or worsted: b: to cease opposition: give up the contest: submit, succumb: c: to cease to withstand the effect of some action d: to agree to accept or comply with something: exhibit willingness rather than opposition: defer 5 a: to give place or precedence (as to one having superior right or claim) : acknowledge the superiority of someone else b: to be inferior in some often specified respect.” (Emphasis added.)

Honoring authorities has suddenly changed into a command not to contest and not to oppose them. This is not only evidence of the un-American nature of this so-called moral code, but it ties directly into the biblical verses quoted by Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia who has cited Romans 13:1-6 for biblical justification for the death penalty. The New English version reads as follows:

“Every person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive. For government, a terror to crime, has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right and you will have their approval, for they are God’s agents working for your good. But if you are doing wrong, then you will have cause to fear them; it is not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are God’s agents of punishment, for retribution on the offender. That is why you are obliged to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities are in God’s service and to these duties they devote their energies.”

If the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed this epistle, they would not have signed the Declaration! For my readers who may not be familiar with biblical passages, most Christians accept these verses to mean that St. Paul is referring only to a benevolent government worthy of trust. For Paul himself testified before King Agrippa, in Acts 26: 10-12 that he had shut up innocent Christians in prison and he had the “authority” to do so; he was acting in an official capacity. He testified against those he apprehended at their trials before they were put to death. He admitted he tortured them and he maintained he had the “authority” to do so.

That same Paul discovered he had been a tyrant in his position of authority—and it is not reasonable to believe that by the time Paul became the leader of the church, he forgot his own evil “authoritative” role. It is not reasonable that he would now urge yielding to evil—a form of complicity! In fact, most Christians compare Romans 13 to a passage in Acts 5:29 when the rulers of Jerusalem gave orders to the apostles, Peter and the apostles answered, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” This was and is a clear instance of civil disobedience and rebellion against the authorities!


Rule 15 emerges as an insidious infringement upon American civil liberties. The rule does the opposite of what it says. It requires citizens to impose self-censorship, and self-restraints that would all but destroy civil liberties in Ohio and in America if this religious moral code were adopted by other states. In essence it demands that civil liberties be denied on a personal level. Let’s read the Rule:

15. LIBERTY: High-character people preserve their public rights by fulfilling their personal responsibilities. In order to preserve public freedoms, every person must exercise private restraints. Therefore, free people embrace self-control so the need for public controls is minimized. As a result, high-character people communicate and live out character ethics and intentionally exhort others to do likewise as an active act of preserving liberty for everyone. (Observable Virtues: temperance, self-control) (Emphasis added)

Once again, if civil liberties cannot be taken away from Americans, Americans can kill their own right to liberty by refusing to exercise their rights. Significantly the rule states why this must be done: civil liberties must be voluntarily killed for the sake of the State. If citizens don’t attend a rally—then the State doesn’t have to police the rally! So Rule 15 asks citizens to voluntarily restrain their rights in order that the State saves money! Not only that, but high character people are required to exhort others to shut their mouths too! And what exactly is meant by exhort? Here’s one definition: “to incite by argument or advice: urge strongly.” And Americans will do this for the greater goal of “preserving liberty for everyone!”

Dominionism and Stewardship

We started this essay by quoting from prominent dominionists, who exposed their own intentions of taking over America on every level, including government, schools, neighborhoods, the arts and science. We’ll close this essay by discussing Rule 17, which comes as close as any of the rules to establishing a “dominionists” world view. The rule reads:

17. STEWARDSHIP: High-character people live as if they will eventually reap what they sow. They actively identify with the role of trustee or steward rather than owner. They perceive their function as a resource or role “caretaker” for a limited time. As a result they regard “positions” and “possessions” as “conferred in temporary trust.” Therefore, they care for their respective positions and possessions diligently and seek to add value to every role and every resource to which they have been entrusted. Ethical people have a high regard for multiplying the value of their “accounts” for the purpose of serving others and benefiting those who follow. (Observable Virtues: humility, orderliness, carefulness) (Emphasis added.)

It all starts with a famous biblical passage: “High character people live as if they will eventually reap what they sow.” This is a paraphrase of Galatians 6:7. Similarly, the rule conveys the idea that high character people (i.e. Dominionist Christians) don’t really own anything, they are merely caretakers for “a limited time.” Then whose property do they occupy? Dominionists—as opposed to all other Christians—believe that they are the “Vice Regents of God.” That is a direct quote from D. James Kennedy that starts this essay off. The idea of a regency stems from the dominionist teaching that Jesus will not return to earth until the whole earth is subdued and under the dominion of “Godly” men who will be acting as caretakers or regents for Christ. In other words, Dominionists plan to establish theocratic regencies—starting with the United States. When the rightful King returns, (presumably Jesus) they will turn over the government of the world to Him. But until He shows up—the regents should have a heyday of wealth and high living! (It’s interesting to note that Pat Robertson renamed his school “Regency University.”)

The words “stewardship” and “steward” are also heavy ladened with biblical imagery. A steward is someone entrusted temporarily with property until the return of the owner. Stewardship is the office of the steward. So even passages like the story of the unjust steward (Luke 16: 11-12) and the parable of the talents in Matthew 25: 14-30, come into play here. It’s important to note that Rule 17 is chock full of biblical references and is pregnant with the dominionist message. Let’s look at the definitions of two words. First “caretaker” as used in this rule.

Caretaker: “1: one that is placed usually as occupant in charge of the upkeep, repairs, and protection of the house, estate, or farm of an owner who may be absent 2: one fulfilling the functions of office on a temporary or provisional basis (a caretaker government).”

And secondly:

Regency: “1 a: the office, jurisdiction, or dominion of a regent or vicarious ruler or of a body of regents 2: a territory governed by a regent or regency. 4: a period during which a regent or body of regents governs.”

Both of these terms have applicable government definitions and applications. These words convey the idea of the biblical steward and his responsibility to the true owner, as do the words “conferred in temporary trust.” But the authors have to push free market enterprise into the idea of stewardship. So Rule 17 introduces the idea that “Ethical people have a high regard for multiplying the value of their ‘accounts.’” That’s just a very, very nice way of saying they like to “make a whole lot of money!” But of course, it’s “for the purpose of serving others and benefiting those who follow!” Blessed be the name of the Lord!

Another scripture comes to mind in the form of a rebuke. “The love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Tim. 6:10) The rebuke is needed. Once again, I make the comment that Ohio’s religious moral code is indeed “religious,” but it is not Christian. It’s a tool to make populations submit to the authority of men who intend to steal the United States out from under “We the people.”

UncommonSense is uncommon because its morally wrong and because it is not sense! Ohio’s attempt to impose the state’s religious values on its own people is a violation of the Constitution and is a seditious act by the leaders who have set this code in place.

Forces have been set in motion that are attempting to destroy our republic. Only “We the people” can save our nation now. The voters of Ohio have to fire the men and women who have schemed secretly to suppress them. The voters of America have to rise up as one and throw the seditious leaders out of office. Sedition is running rampant through GOP controlled legislative houses and congress. “We the people” must be willing to stand up and say to those who are trying to destroy America as we know it, “You shall not pass!” “You shall not touch liberty!” Raise the staff of Truth! No Balrog can impede the progress of Liberty. No Balrog can stamp out our values for the common good to better all our lives and not just a few. “We are the people! And you shall not dominate us!”

The Bridge of Khazad-dum and The Defeat of the Balrog

There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments…‘You cannot pass!’ he said.With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge. Its whip whirled and hissed.‘He cannot stand alone!’ cried Aragorn suddenly and ran back along the bridge. ‘Elendil!’ he shouted. ‘I am with you Gandalf!’‘Gondor!’ cried Boromir and leaped after him.At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up. The bridge cracked. Right at the Balrog’s feet it broke, and the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust out into emptiness.With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished.”

J. R. R. Tolkien from The Fellowship of the Ring

The Conference was held at James Kennedy’s church, Coral Ridge Presbyterian, in Fort Lauderdale in February, 2005. See: Bob Moser, “The Crusaders, Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image” originally published in Rolling Stone, April 7, 2005 and then posted at the Yurica Report at:

See also “A Mission to ‘Reclaim America’ by Jane Lampman, March 16, 2005, from CBS and the Christian Science Monitor, posted at the Yurica Report at:

[2] Bob Moser, “The Crusaders, Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image” originally published in Rolling Stone, April 7, 2005 and then posted at the Yurica Report at:

[3] America’s Providential History, (Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, and Family Life) by Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, 1989, The Providence Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia. In the Introduction, page VII.

[4] Ibid, at page 1.

[5] Note the new pledge of allegiance of this dominionist group as written in Bob Moser’s article: “In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: 'I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe.’”
“The Crusaders, Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image” by Bob Moser, originally published in Rolling Stone, April 7, 2005 and then posted at the Yurica Report at:

[6] Jeffrey Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ, Inside America’s most powerful mega-church.” Published by Harper’s Magazine.

Sharlet writes: "In addition to New Life, Pastor Ted presides over the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), whose 45,000 churches and 30 million believers make up the nation’s most powerful religious lobbying group, and also over a smaller network of his own creation, the Association of Life-Giving Churches, 300 or so congregations modeled on New Life’s “free market” approach to the divine...New Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, 'like the benefits, risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society.' They like the stimulation of a new brand. 'Have you ever switched your toothpaste brand, just for the fun of it?' Pastor Ted asks. Admit it, he insists.

All the way home, you felt a 'secret little thrill,' as excited questions ran through your mind: 'Will it make my teeth whiter? My breath fresher?'....This is the sensation Ted wants pastors to bring to the Christian experience. He believes it is time 'to harness the forces of free-market capitalism in our ministry.' Globalization, he believes, is merely a vehicle for the spread of Christianity. He means Protestantism in particular; Catholics, he said, 'constantly look back.' ....'My fear,” he says, 'is that my children will grow up in an Islamic state.' "And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. 'I teach a strong ideology of the use of power,' he says, 'of military might, as a public service.' He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible’s exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because 'the Bible’s bloody. There’s a lot about blood.'"

[7] See also Katherine Yurica’s essay, “Conquering by Stealth and Deception: How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power,” which discusses Bobbitt’s analysis and vision of a future American agenda and structure based upon neo-conservative ideology and analyzes the clues to his acceptance of dominionism as a vehicle to accomplish his market-state empire-expanding vision. See Philip Bobbitt’s book The Shield of Achilles, Alfred A. Knopf, N.Y. 2002. See Yurica’s essay at:

[8]See Feudalism by Paul Vinogradoff, 1924 Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 3, pp. 458-484

[9] Ibid. Bobbitt, like Machiavelli, sees war, as all conservatives do, a necessity for the expansion of the growth of a state.

[10] The tract does not identify any author, but simply states that it is copyrighted in 2003 by the American Center for Civic Character, Version 5.5.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Gary North has actually pointed out that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution preserves the right of slavery and involuntary servitude for the punishment of crimes. North actually embraces the idea of bringing slavery back for punishment purposes.

[13] See for example 1 Corinthians 3: 19: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” And see 1 Corinthians 1:27: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.”

[14] This definition suggests or implies what the politically conservative Machiavelli made famous: “the ends justify the means,” though morally reprehensible, it is manifestly adopted by today’s neo-conservative/dominionist political duo.

[15] See Proverbs 3: 19-20: “The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.” KJV. And see Psalm 136:5.

[16] Ephesians 2:3. But compare the term “regeneration” in Matthew 19:28; and in Titus 3:5 where individuals are regenerated. And see II Corinthians 5:17 where regeneration makes “new creature [or creation] in Christ Jesus.”

[17] 2 Peter 1:4. II Corinthians 5: 17.

[18] See 1 John: 3:4 where the Greek word anomia is translated “lawlessness” in most of the Bible versions. Compare the following:
The Amplified Bible reads: “Every one who commits (practices) sin is guilty of lawlessness; for [that is what] sin is, lawlessness [the breaking, violating of God’s law by transgression or neglect; being unrestrained and unregulated by His commands and His will].

Similarly, the New International Version reads: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.”
The New American Standard Bible reads: “Every one who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”

The Revised Standard Bible reads: “Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.”
The New English Bible reads: “To commit sin is to break God’s law: sin, in fact, is lawlessness.”
The King James Version reads: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.”

[19] See Also Rule 18. SEEKING COUNSEL, where high character people seek advice from wise people of “high character.”

[20] Ephesians 5:22.

Send a letter to the editor about this article

Related Articles

Blackwell's Scheme:Ohio State's Religious-Moral Code DecipheredIn Parallel ColumnsAnnotations by Katherine Yurica

Blackwell's Scheme:Glossary of TermsFrom Ohio State's Religious-Moral Code

Blackwell's Biography

Related Articles

Church leaders seek more influence in Ohio state government

By CHARITA M. GOSHAY Repository staff writerSeptember 4, 2005The Rev. Russell Johnson says he doesn’t want to take over Ohio; he just wants to improve it based on his Christian faith.The way that he’s going about it is making some people nervous. Bolstered by a pivotal role in President Bush’s re-election and passage of a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, some Ohio conservative evangelicals are working to ensure they have an impact in the 2006 elections.

Dominionists Try to Get Control of Ohio Government Posts

From the New York TimesBy JAMES DAO COLUMBUS, Ohio - Christian conservative leaders from scores of Ohio's fastest growingchurches are mounting a campaign to win control of local government posts and Republican organizations, starting with the 2006 governor's race.

In a manifesto that is being circulated among church leaders and on the Internet, the group, which is called the Ohio Restoration Project, is planning to mobilize 2,000 evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic leaders in a network of so-called Patriot Pastors to register half a million new voters, enlist activists, train candidates and endorse conservative causes in the next year.

Dominionists Stage Weeklong Occupation at Columbus City HallThe Free Pressby Mike Doughney and Lauren Sabina KneislyOSA has long used abortion as a tactical vehicleto give legitimacy to its underlying, dominionist purpose.

Ohio, Blackwell & the Christian Right, Part IIBy Frederick ClarksonRecently, the Ohio Restoration Project announced plans to mobilize conservative Christian voters towards the 2006 elections. The principal beneficiary appears to be Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell who is running for the Republican nomination for governor.