Get your Rapture hats ready, kiddies! The sky is falling, and our wise gift of nuclear winter will propel us all into the loving arms of the all-knowing and all-everywhere G-d.


"Gospel of Wealth"damages a person's walk with God =>Senate probe "prosperity gospel" ." 27 Dec07,

(Told ya so!) prosperity preacher is chock full o' skunk bunk & your Christ's  money...ha3
Go to Original

    "Gospel of Wealth" Facing Scrutiny
    By Eric Gorski
    The Associated Press

    Thursday 27 December 2007

God and riches: Senate probe shines light on televangelists' "prosperity gospel."

    The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor's living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.

    And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Fla., area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn and a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.

    Only the blessings didn't come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn't strong enough.

    "I wanted to believe God wanted to do something great with me like he was doing with them," she said. "I'm angry and bitter about it. Right now, I don't watch anyone on TV hardly."

    All three of the groups Fleenor supported are among six major Christian television ministries under scrutiny by a senator who is asking questions about the evangelists' lavish spending and possible abuses of their tax-exempt status.

    The probe by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has brought new scrutiny to the underlying belief that brings in millions of dollars and fills churches from Atlanta to Los Angeles the "Gospel of Prosperity," or the notion that God wants to bless the faithful with earthly riches.

    All six ministries under investigation preach the prosperity gospel to varying degrees.

    Proponents call it a biblically sound message of hope. Others say it is a distortion that makes evangelists rich and preys on the vulnerable. They say it has evolved from "it's all right to make money" to it's all right for the pastor to drive a Bentley, live in an oceanside home and travel by private jet.

    "More and more people are desperate and grasping at straws and want something that will alleviate their pain or financial crisis," said Michael Palmer, dean of the divinity school at Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson. "It's a growing problem."

    The modern-day prosperity movement can largely be traced back to evangelist Oral Roberts' teachings. Roberts' disciples have spread his theology and vocabulary (Roberts and other evangelists, such as Meyer, call their donors "partners.") And several popular prosperity preachers, including some now under investigation, have served on the Oral Roberts University board.

    Grassley is asking the ministries for financial records on salaries, spending practices, private jets and other perks. The investigation, coupled with a financial scandal at ORU that forced out Roberts' son and heir, Richard, has some wondering whether the prosperity gospel is facing a day of reckoning.

    While few expect the movement to disappear, the scrutiny could force greater financial transparency and oversight in a movement known for secrecy.

    Most scholars trace the origins of prosperity theology to E.W. Kenyon, an evangelical pastor from the first half of the 20th century.

    But it wasn't until the postwar era and a pair of evangelists from Tulsa, Okla. that "health and wealth" theology became a fixture in Pentecostal and charismatic churches.

    Oral Roberts and Kenneth Hagin and later, Kenneth Copeland trained tens of thousands of evangelists with a message that resonated with an emerging middle class, said David Edwin Harrell Jr., a Roberts biographer. Copeland is among those now being investigated.

    "What Oral did was develop a theology that made it OK to prosper," Harrell said. "He let Pentecostals be faithful to the old-time truths their grandparents embraced and be part of the modern world, where they could have good jobs and make money."

    The teachings took on various names "Name It and Claim It," "Word of Faith," the prosperity gospel.

    Prosperity preachers say that it isn't all about money that God's blessings extend to health, relationships and being well-off enough to help others.

    They have Bible verses at the ready to make their case. One oft-cited verse, in Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, reads: "Yet for your sakes he became poor, that you by his poverty might become rich."

    Critics acknowledge the idea that God wants to bless his followers has a Biblical basis, but say prosperity preachers take verses out of context. The prosperity crowd also fails to acknowledge Biblical accounts that show God doesn't always reward faithful believers, Palmer said.

    The Book of Job is a case study in piety unrewarded, and a chapter in the Book of Hebrews includes a litany of believers who were tortured and martyred, Palmer said.

    Yet the prosperity gospel continues to draw crowds, particularly lower- and middle-income people who, critics say, have the greatest motivation and the most to lose. The prosperity message is spreading to black churches, attracting elderly people with disposable incomes, and reaching huge churches in Africa and other developing parts of the world.

    One of the teaching's attractions is that it doesn't dwell on traditional Christian themes of heaven and hell but on answering pressing concerns of the here and now, said Brian McLaren, a liberal evangelical author and pastor.

    But the prosperity gospel, McLaren said, not only preys on the hope of the vulnerable, it puts too much emphasis on individual success and happiness.

    "We've pretty much ignored what the Bible says about systemic injustice," he said.

    The checks and balances central to Christian denominations are largely lacking in prosperity churches. One of the pastors in the Grassley probe, Bishop Eddie Long of suburban Atlanta, has written that God told him to get rid of the "ungodly governmental structure" of a deacon board.

    Some ministers hold up their own wealth as evidence that the teaching works. Atlanta-area pastor Creflo Dollar, who is fighting Grassley's inquiry, owns a Rolls Royce and multimillion-dollar homes and travels in a church-owned Learjet.

    In a letter to Grassley, Dollar's attorney calls the prosperity gospel a "deeply held religious belief" grounded in Scripture and therefore a protected religious freedom. Grassley has said his probe is not about theology.

    But even some prosperity gospel critics like the Rev. Adam Hamilton of 15,000-member United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in suburban Kansas City, Mo. say that the investigation is entering a minefield.

    "How do you determine how much money a minister like this is able to make when the basic theology is that wealth is OK?" said Hamilton, an Oral Roberts graduate who later left the charismatic movement. "That gets into theological questions."

    There is evidence of change. Joyce Meyer Ministries, for one, enacted financial reforms in recent years, including making audited financial statements public.

    Meyer, who has promised to cooperate fully with Grassley, issued a statement emphasizing that a prosperity gospel "that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person's walk with God."


  Jump to today's Truthout Features:  


IRAQI War LIES -- You already knew and you already know
Egads - sifting for the awesome sysinternals boot-defrag file [now owned by the Borg = MSFT] led to.../... PS: how cute, the 2nd google hit for search of " uncapitaulated " is this totally ACCURATE [and of COURSE ignored by quislings everywhere...] rant here:
There is only one reason for insanity of this kind: we are absolutely convinced we are "entitled" to rule the world, by military force on a scale never before seen in all of world history. If that is what you believe, then say so -- and be damned. [2+ articles condensed at page-bottom] don't miss:

2005-11-19 Hyperthreading Hurts Server Performance?

The code wasn't changed(Score:5, Informative) ( )I read the intel assembly guide section regarding hyperthreading, and it clearly states that performance will drop if you don't take the shared cache into consideration..../... It's been known that way since the beginning, and frankly, is silly that MS is scratching their heads wondering why this is..--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

Errare humanum est, persevare diabolicum !
The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery. Winston Churchill

Re:Singularity is truly an intriguing system.
by (880063)
In twenty or so years we may look back at Microsoft Research

with the same admiration we have for Bell Labs. I just shot soda out of my nose. You owe me a keyboard. -- Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos .

Too Telling
by (912839)
Isn't it telling that the idea of Microsoft telling the truth is considered front page news on /.?

5 Steps of Grieving
by (601098)
hmm funny, the last step is Acceptance. Too bad it seems Microsoft skipped the "bargaining" step. -- Microsoft is a Convicted Monopolist [ ].

2005-11-14 RE: Early Warning by William M. Arkin -

Early Warning by William M. Arkin - "I don't know how you can possibly sit there and make the argument that everyone believed it until after the war. I sat and explained to my kids in the days before the invasion that the U.S. was ignoring the truth provided by U.N. inspectors. This is no 'hindsight' argument. The world did not participate in this invasion for the obvious reason that there was NO proof of WMD. The U.N spent months and months looking. And even if Saddam played games here and there, eventually the U.N. got in. And as ed pointed out, if they were busy moving these masses of WMDs around, there would be satellite proof. There was none. Bush wanted a war and he got one. And he has made the world far more dangerous with his tactics. It is well known that there was little or no terrorist activity in Iraq prior to the war. It is well known that Al Queda wanted nothing to do with Saddam. This is the endless cosmic joke of this war. Mr. Arkin, get it right. This article is a joke. No one is saying there aren't WMDs in this world. No one is saying the U.S. should disarm. No one is saying that we shouldn't keep our guard up. Sure, governments use the WMD spectre to maintain a vigilant stance. But that is not an argument to invade a country that had shown no capability and no evidence of possessing any."

-I also agree with Keith. The inspectors were in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion. In the few weeks before the invasion they had found nothing. Bush did not trust the inspectors, he said it himself. At the time I wondered why he felt so threatened by a country that had UN weapons inspectors on the ground and UN no-fly zones where US aircraft could restrict Saddam and even spy on the country. I'm sure we had spies on the ground as well. So I agree with Keith that at the time I found it hard to believe Saddam had any significant WMD that he could threaten us [no, the USA was not remotely in danger... it was only AIPAC that wanted the puny furball expunged, and the World-Owning Oil Cos which hated Saddam's frequent LOWERING of prices and Increasing of oil supplies.... /js zog]


What is most inexplicable are the following:
-Why when no WMD were found was the director of CIA given the medal of freedom?

-Why was there no post-war planning? ["SLAM-DDUNK" did not mean there was a shred of proof, it meant the gullibility of sheeple to pentacon FUD pelted from the media megaphones ....the empire annex-ers KNEW 14 permanent bases were required, doh!, to be admitted publicly years later / all the truth-inverters from wtc hoax were ALSO promoted not rebuked.../... see a pattern, like "heckuva job Brownie".../... / js zog ]
-What was the urgency to invade when inspectors were on the ground?
-Why was it so important to replace the Baath party and not just mount an invasion that supported an overthrow of Saddam?
-Why was no one fired for the lack of post-war planning and the bad intelligence.

-Why, when looting was rampant in Baghdad was Rummy not fired for saying: "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things" After all that has happened, if Bush were running a company where I sat on the Board, I'd call for his firing. And considering that the US government is set up so that the people act like a corporate board that places individuals in positions of power, I think it is time to call on Congress to begin an investigation into the incompetence this administration has shown and impeach Bush based not on the probable lying and not on probable manipulation of intelligence, but on pure incompetence which I believe the vast majority of the American people can agree on and support

February 15, 2003 was a global day of protests against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. The event was listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest mass protest movement in history. According to the BBC between six and 10 million people took part in protests in up to 60 countries over the weekend (the 15th and 16th). Iraq wasn't invaded for another month. Millions of people worldwide did not believe that Iraq had WMD. You are a total right-wing liar to try and say otherwise.

No, not 'EVERYONE' believed Iraq had WMDs. Far from it. Millions crowded European streets saying just that. And from the beginning nothing really made sense. On the one hand the USA was stating flatly that Iraq had weapons and the Intel community knew where they were. On the other hand, they refused to give this information to UN inspectors in Iraq equipped with helicopters and the right to go anywhere, anytime. The yellow cake scare had been blown apart - disturbingly under-reported, but very much a discredited [gee, the Scooter Libby circus of lying goats, 4 years later, all cornpone all the time, WHEE! ] causus belli long before war. And Powell's pictures of fuzzy milk trucks raised more questions than they answered. I think, perhaps, a portion of Americans may have thought there was a consensus on the existence of WMDs (it's easy to get lost in a sea of flags) but I can assure you over an Irish pint, a Canadian doughnut or a French coffee there was increduilty at American motives and rationale


Ingoring the UN to attack Iraq for ignoring the UN - pathetic.

If we don't want to be part of the UN, then fine, but don't go and ask permission to invade Iraq because they were ignoring the UN, then get a "no" vote and say screw it were going in anyhow.


If the President, ANY PRESIDENT, isn't responsible for the words he speaks in the state-of -the-union-address, then we should not bother having a president All that w can say now "everyone else thought the same way." We don't even let kids off with that excuse
The first question of every news conference should be - Mr President, have you had anything to drink yet today?

Think. It should be apparent to the intelligent that one has to agree to be lied to for a lie to work. Did anyone NOT know that Bush/Cheney & Co. wanted to attack Iraq? How could you miss it? The neo-cons published it. [,

oops, was it scrubbed from AEI site?] We all knew. Every government needs to have a reason that decent people can support to cripple an economy or two, sacrifice our soldiers, kill civilians, and make war on another man's home. It's in the history books, folks, right there at the beginning of every war. Lies beforehand. Lies now. Only the unspeakably dense, superstition devotees, and human grist will waste time seeking more and more "facts". You already knew and you already know


Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million Haven't we been over this already? by (918562) Here are the rules: 1) Money is all that matters. 2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen 3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available 4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad. 5) If you buy something from a company, they own you [DRM lock-ins] 6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal. 7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies. 8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over Let's see, we're all guilty of...well,

pretty much everything.

Re:Haven't we been over this already?
by (861094)
Wow, it's nice to see that you've done a good job of surpressing yourself.
Who needs to bother creating a Big Brother when the cowards take care of themselves? --

A letter from the woman being sued by (589264)
She sent this to someone at, which is were I pasted it from:
------ Thanks so much! I have a pretty strong case of defence at my end including many letters of thanks from the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Labour
. To want to sue me for $2,000,000 is just a way of "SLAPPing me." "SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". SLAPPs are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the primary purpose of shutting down criticism, and without a strong cause of action. The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP is not to win the lawsuit, but is rather to silence a critic by instilling fear of large legal costs and the spectre of large damage awards. Despite their right to free speech, critics may be frightened into silence e.g., taking down websites or comments made on line - if they are threatened with a defamation-based SLAPP. This method will not work with me. I've got way to much evidence at my end. I could actually counter sue for what I have been through so we'll see what happens. Either way, I'm glad it's out there in the media. Folks really need to know. With letters like yours it's great to know the message is getting out there. Thanks for your support! L. Lanteigne Waterloo Ont. -----

photograph everything
by (80659)
Let this be a lesson. In the days of cheap digital cameras, if you're going to take on a task like this woman did, you might as well photograph every last thing and notate when the pictures were taken, and under what circumstances.
If that became a common practice, it's easy to imagine the bigger engineering companies collaborating with our elected officials to create laws and ordinances against "photographing at a construction site" or some shiite... Something unconstitutional but meant to up the ante a litle bit for anyone who wants to take this task on.

2005-11-13#8 Why the Hurricane Plan Got Trashed

Wired 13.11: START"Everybody talks about the weather," Mark Twain famously noted, "but nobody does anything about it." Sounds a lot like Hurricane Katrina. The experts in New Orleans and beyond talked about the potential for a levee collapse as far back as the 1960s. A 2001 study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency predicted most of what actually came to pass. And last year, National Geographic published a stunningly prescient step-by-step description of what ultimately befell the Crescent City. By the time Katrina roared ashore, every detail of the catastrophe had been foretold.

But the test of good scenario planning is not just better predictions but better decisions. And the decision-makers at every level "failed" to make the right calls in Louisiana. As a result, confusion reigned, more than 1,000 people died, and half a million homes were damaged or destroyed. The disaster ['should be' but won't be/js] will be etched in the nation's memory along with the 1871 Chicago fire, the 1889 Johnstown flood, and the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

Turns out there's a huge difference between anticipating disaster and actually being prepared for it. Scenario planning is not a waste; computer models can now game the behavior of millions of variables and render nuanced predictions of everything from bioterror attacks to massive earthquakes. Too bad that when it came to a hurricane like Katrina, political expediency [sorry its "(DELIBERATE) INCOMPETENCE", for millionth time, as in WTC, WMD, Medicare, and everything the Govt = Corporatist boot-lickers contrive / zog and shortsightedness prevented adequate preparation. Everyone knew what was coming; they just failed to act on it.

Why? Cost, for starters. Planning for the worst is expensive, financially and politically. Government officials have a clear interest in pleasing constituents with projects and benefits that make a difference within one election cycle. Disaster prep gets pushed down the priority list. This year, for example, Congress and the Bush administration cut funding to improve levees in New Orleans from $27.1 million - the amount requested by the Army Corps of Engineers - to $5.7 million. The result: Construction was postponed indefinitely. Even when politicians are willing to take the threat of disaster seriously, the perverse incentives of short-term thinking can warp the effectiveness of the spending. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress allocated $10.6 billion to homeland security. But instead of doling it out to the places most likely to be attacked, the money was widely distributed - effectively spreading the pork among [sorry its massively to GOP areas] congressional districts. Ranchers in Wyoming are getting more protection per capita [and in net dollars too, many cases are abject FRAUD/] than residents of targets like New York City and Washington, DC.

Then there's the insurance mentality. The brutal logic of risk dictates that it's cheaper to pay for the aftermath of a single, relatively localized disaster than it is to prepare for that same disaster in every place at every time. This is how insurance companies make money. But unlike government, they have actuaries who are able to accurately estimate value and thus assess risk. If the true value of New Orleans - especially its importance as a port - had been understood by government officials, the cost to prepare properly for a hurricane the strength of Katrina would have seemed a bargain. [sorry, that is pathetically naive, the GOVT WANTED all those POOR and DEM folks OUT OF THERE to enable enclaves for the 'clean', the counted, 'Americans' to usurp the entire future of the region... QED/ js]

Even when governments do face up to the likelihood of extreme disasters, politics can still undermine the results. In 1979, California Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, established an earthquake-preparedness task force that was a model of prudence and foresight. (Disclosure: I worked for Brown setting up the panel.) After Republican George Deukmejian was elected in 1982, he reversed many of the measures Brown had put in place. In 1985, he disbanded the task force. The people of the Bay Area paid for that lack of preparation in 1989 when the Loma Prieta earthquake caused a freeway collapse, fires in San Francisco's Marina district, and damage to the Bay Bridge.

All of this does not mean that scenario planning can't work or that attempting it is useless. As Jeanne, a Category 3 hurricane, approached the Florida coast in September 2004, computer modeling experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory supplied state and federal emergency teams with detailed - and uncannily accurate - predictions on power outages, flooding, and other storm effects. The result: Mandatory evacuations moved people safely out of what became the hardest-hit areas, and repair crews descended on damaged electrical centers almost before they went down. Power was restored much more quickly than it otherwise would have been. It's a modest example, but considering how wrong things can go in the face of a hurricane, it's a scenario worth following.
PS - chairs the Global Business Network and helped create the field of scenario planning.

-- /////// yes FACTS are exposed here: I love it that Chris Floyd uses the identical Santa Claus metaphor which in NOV2007 become the cornerstone of my Prognosis and Paradigm for the infantility of Americanist denial-ism QED ////////////////////////////////////////
"Why the Stories We Tell Matter So Much ," our national mythology sees the United States as uniquely successful in world history. We see our success, and our power on the world stage, as inherently tied to superior moral virtue. We are so successful because we are uniquely virtuous, and our national power confirms our morality, in relation to which all other peoples and all other countries can only suffer in comparison. One of the many dangerous and inevitable consequences of this view is an often virulent racism that has been reflected in our treatment of many very numerous groups of people: the Native Americans, the slaves who were brought here and were an integral part of the new country's economy, Germans in World War I (German-Americans were the "scum of the melting pot," who now needed to be gotten "rid of"), the Japanese in World War II (the "yellow Japs," who were "regularly compared" to "monkeys, baboons, and gorillas"), and a number of other foreigners and immigrants. Very recently, we witnessed the sickening spectacle of this atavistic racism unleashed in the
unleashed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

I expressed the relevant part of this national mythology as follows:
In the most extreme (and, one could argue, most consistent) version of this tale, non-Western parts of the world are less than human -- and they are subhuman by choice. They are immoral, and sometimes even evil. Since we represent the good and they represent the evil, we are surely entitled to improve them, by invasion and bombing if necessary. If they do not threaten us today, they might at some indeterminate time in the future. And while we might kill many innocent civilians in our campaign of civilization, those who survive will be infinitely better off than they would have been otherwise. Besides, how "innocent" can any of them be -- since they are members of inferior, less than fully human civilizations, and since they are so by choice? dominion-over-world-vii-mythology-of.html
One point is crucial: a critical part of our national mythology is the insistence on viewing our nation and ourselves as Americans in comparative terms. When we insist that we are uniquely "good" and "virtuous," this logically necessitates a further conclusion: we are better than everyone else. We are "the Good Guys." The emphasis is not only on "Good," but on "the" : we are the Good Guys in a way that no one else is, or can ever be .../...
This kind of perspective arises in large part out of what [ a CHRISTIAN with Harvard Divinity Masters degree] in Chris Hedges calls "mythic war," a subject I discussed in the third part of my Iran series. Note how Hedges describes this phenomenon (from his book, War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning), ...The potency of myth is that it allows us to make sense of mayhem and violent death. ... By turning history into myth we transform random events into a chain of events directed by a will greater than our own, one that is determined and preordained. We are elevated above the multitude. We march toward nobility. And no society is immune.
------------------------------ nation-of-stupid-children-who-refuse-to.html

March 01, 2007

A Nation of Children, Who Refuse to Give Up the [MYTHICAL] Lies

By the age of eight or nine, most children realize that Santa Claus isn't a real person, just as they know the Easter Bunny and similar pleasantries are only make-believe, tales of imagination offered to add a bit of fun to the holidays. The great majority of children give up these fantasies without experiencing emotional upheaval that remotely approaches serious trauma. Those very rare children fortunate enough to be raised by adults who accord them the seriousness and respect they deserve know such stories to be ones of invention from the beginning.

Unfortunately, the great majority of Americans -- led by a relentlessly trivial and mendacious political class and a comparably anti-intellectual media -- never approach again the psychological achievement of children who undergo this transition. Still more unfortunately, most of these same children, while able to recognize fabrications of the Santa Claus variety, become prisoners of the American mythology that I recently discussed . Their pathetic plight is understandable in one sense, since almost no one will disabuse them of the lies with which they comfort themselves. Nonetheless, one can legitimately hope and expect that upon attaining adulthood, more individuals would be prepared to exercise even limited independent powers of assessment. But if you have such expectations, you will almost always be disappointed.

Thus it is that we have repellently idiotic episodes of the following kind: .../...
.../... And so we debate whether these lives were "wasted." With the blind ferocity of religious maniacs, we enforce our new Puritan code, which demands that certain prohibited thoughts may never be uttered. Violation of this code means banishment from public life and from further "serious" consideration. Every matter of importance is reduced to the intellectual level of a remarkably backward house pet.

Meanwhile, no one will stop this criminal war and occupation. And no one will do a goddamned thing to stop the next war, which could alter all our lives forever.

How in the world do most Americans face themselves each morning? Someone needs to explain that to me. I truly would like to know. posted by Arthur Silber we gotta pull the plug on this COMATOSE NATION sometime soon... more antidote here:

Judeo-Christians: Pied Pipers of Serial War
Charles E. Carlson Mar 01, 2007

Our Serial Wars cannot be ended for only one reason. There remains one big, stubborn, grassroots block of support for war that will not fade away. We Hold These Truths calls it Judeo-Christianity; to others it is Christian-Zionism... Its adherents are our closest friends, brothers, wives, and parents. In trying to do good for Israel they enable death; but they are deserving of rescue. Judeo-Christians themselves are the most tragic victims of their own error!

Christians Should Follow Christ
Jean Allen Feb 17, 2007
Christ said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." So, how did Christians turn into Christian-Zionists (evangelicals), elect Bush, and fund the bombing of Iraqi and Palestinian children? And how can they claim to be "pro-life?"
43 minute slideshow==> "Christian Zionist Roots", Audio/Visual,
-- Hey, there are some good LAUGHS in here, too... some sugar-coating for those inured to cornpone = ALL-Toob-Fed and ALL the Time the Terry Schaivo - nation,
hooked on hate-of-others and me-first-ism.


Fall-Guy Part I "Go Into Kuwait, Saddam"

The Hidden Meeting, Glaspie and Hussein, July 25, 1990

Headliners; In Her Own Words

Ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait nearly eight months ago, April C. Glaspie has been taking the fall. As Ambassador to Iraq, she met with Saddam Hussein in late July 1990. A transcript released by Iraq after the invasion said that she had told Mr. Hussein the United States had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts," which Iraq -- and some Americans -- took to mean that the United States would not react if Iraq moved on Kuwait. But last week Ms. Glaspie, speaking publicly for the first time, said ...

March 24, 1991


Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: I have summoned you today to hold comprehensive political discussions with you. This is a message to President Bush. You know that we did not have relations with the U.S. until 1984 and you know the circumstances and reasons which caused them to be severed. The decision to establish relations with the U.S. were taken in 1980 during the two months prior to the war between us and Iran.

When the war started, and to avoid misinterpretation, we postponed the establishment of relations hoping that the war would end soon.

But because the war lasted for a long time, and to emphasize the fact that we are a non-aligned country, it was important to re-establish relations with the U.S. And we choose to do this in 1984.

It is natural to say that the U.S. is not like Britain, for example, with the latter's historic relations with Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq. In addition, there were no relations between Iraq and the U.S. between 1967 and 1984. One can conclude it would be difficult for the U.S. to have a full understanding of many matters in Iraq. When relations were re-established we hoped for a better understanding and for better cooperation because we too do not understand the background of many American decisions. We dealt with each other during the war and we had dealings on various levels. The most important of those levels were with the foreign ministers.

U.S.-Iraq Rifts

We had hoped for a better common understanding and a better chance of cooperation to benefit both our peoples and the rest of the Arab nations.

But these better relations have suffered from various rifts. The worst of these was in 1986, only two years after establishing relations, with what was known as Irangate, which happened during the year that Iran occupied the Fao peninsula.

It was natural then to say that old relations and complexity of interests could absorb many mistakes. But when interests are limited and relations are not that old, then there isn't a deep understanding and mistakes could have a negative effect. Sometimes the effect of an error can be larger than the error itself.

Despite all of that, we accepted the apology, via his envoy, of the American President regarding Irangate, and we wiped the slate clean. And we shouldn't unearth the past except when new events remind us that old mistakes were not just a matter of coincidence.

Our suspicions increased after we liberated the Fao peninsula. The media began to involve itself in our politics. And our suspicions began to surface anew, because we began to question whether the U.S. felt uneasy with the outcome of the war when we liberated our land.

It was clear to us that certain parties in the United States -- and I don't say the President himself -- but certain parties who had links with the intelligence community and with the State Department -- and I don't say the Secretary of State himself -- I say that these parties did not like the fact that we liberated our land. Some parties began to prepare studies entitles: "Who will succeed Saddam Hussein?" They began to contact gulf states to make them fear Iraq, to persuade them not to give Iraq economic aid. And we have evidence of these activities.

Iraqi Policy on Oil

Iraq came out of the war burdened with $40 billion debts, excluding the aid given by Arab states, some of whom consider that too to be a debt although they knew -- and you knew too -- that without Iraq they would not have had these sums and the future of the region would have been entirely different.

We began to face the policy of the drop in the price of oil. Then we saw the United States, which always talks of democracy but which has no time for the other point of view. Then the media campaign against Saddam Hussein was started by the official American media. The United States thought that the situation in Iraq was like Poland, Romania or Czechoslovakia. We were disturbed by this campaign but we were not disturbed too much because we had hoped that, in a few months, those who are decision makers in America would have a chance to find the facts and see whether this media campaign had had any effect on the lives of Iraqis. We had hoped that soon the American authorities would make the correct decision regarding their relations with Iraq. Those with good relations can sometimes afford to disagree.

But when planned and deliberate policy forces the price of oil down without good commercial reasons, then that means another war against Iraq. Because military war kills people by bleeding them, and economic war kills their humanity by depriving them of their chance to have a good standard of living. As you know, we gave rivers of blood in a war that lasted eight years, but we did not lose our humanity. Iraqis have a right to live proudly. We do not accept that anyone could injure Iraqi pride or the Iraqi right to have high standards of living.

Kuwait and the U.A.E. were at the front of this policy aimed at lowering Iraq's position and depriving its people of higher economic standards. And you know that our relations with the Emirates and Kuwait had been good. On top of all that, while we were busy at war, the state of Kuwait began to expand at the expense of our territory.

You may say this is propaganda, but I would direct you to one document, the Military Patrol Line, which is the borderline endorsed by the Arab League in 1961 for military patrols not to cross the Iraq-Kuwait border.

But go and look for yourselves. You will see the Kuwaiti border patrols, the Kuwaiti farms, the Kuwaiti oil installations -- all built as closely as possible to this line to establish that land as Kuwaiti territory.

Conflicting Interests

Since then, the Kuwaiti Government has been stable while the Iraqi Government has undergone many changes. Even after 1968 and for 10 years afterwards, we were too busy with our own problems. First in the north then the 1973 war, and other problems. Then came the war with Iran which started 10 years ago.

We believe that the United States must understand that people who live in luxury and economic security can each an understanding with the United States on what are legitimate joint interests. But the starved and the economically deprived cannot reach the same understanding.

We do not accept threats from anyone because we do not threaten anyone. But we say clearly that we hope that the U.S. will not entertain too many illusions and will seek new friends rather than increase the number of its enemies.

I have read the American statements speaking of friends in the area. Of course, it is the right of everyone to choose their friends. We can have no objections. But you know you are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure you, had the Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use of nuclear weapons.

I do not belittle you. But I hold this view by looking at the geography and nature of American society into account. Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle.

You know that Iran agreed to the cease-fire not because the United States had bombed one of the oil platforms after the liberation of the Fao. Is this Iraq's reward for its role in securing the stability of the region and for protecting it from an unknown flood?

Protecting the Oil Flow

So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the U.A.E. and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights.

I say to you clearly that Iraq's rights, which are mentioned in the memorandum, we will take one by one. That might not happen now or after a month or after one year, but we will take it all. We are not the kind of people who will relinquish their rights. There is no historic right, or legitimacy, or need, for the U.A.E. and Kuwait to deprive us of our rights. If they are needy, we too are needy.

The United States must have a better understanding of the situation and declare who it wants to have relations with and who its enemies are. But it should not make enemies simply because others have different points of view regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

We clearly understand America's statement that it wants an easy flow of oil. We understanding American staying that it seeks friendship with the states in the region, and to encourage their joint interests. But we cannot understand the attempt to encourage some parties to hard Iraq's interests.

The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of -- flexing muscles and pressure.

If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.

War and Friendship

You can come to Iraq with aircraft and missiles but do not push us to the point where we cease to care. And when we feel that you want to injure our pride and take away the Iraqis' chance of a high standard of living, then we will cease to care and death will be the choice for us. Then we would not care if you fired 100missiles for each missile we fired. Because without pride life would have no value.

It is not reasonable to ask our people to bleed rivers of blood for eight years then to tell them, "Now you have to accept aggression from Kuwait, the U.A.E., or from the U.S. or from Israel."

We do not put all these countries in the same boat. First, we are hurt and upset that such disagreement is taking place between us and Kuwait and the U.A.E. The solution must be found within an Arab framework and through direct bilateral relations. We do not place America among the enemies. We pace it where we want our friends to be and we try to be friends. But repeated American statements last year make it apparent that America did not regard us as friends. Well the Americans are free.

When we seek friendship we want pride, liberty and our right to choose.

We want to deal according to our status as we deal with the others according to their statuses.

We consider the others' interests while we look after our own. And we expect the others to consider our interests while they are dealing with their own. What does it mean when the Zionist war minister is summoned to the United States now? What do they mean, these fiery statements coming out of Israel during the past few days and the talk of war being expected now more than at any other time?

* * *

I do not believe that anyone would lose by making friends with Iraq. In my opinion, the American President has not made mistakes regarding the Arabs, although his decision to freeze dialogue with the P.L.O. was wrong. But it appears that this decision was made to appease the Zionist lobby or as a piece of strategy to cool the Zionist anger, before trying again. I hope that our latter conclusion is the correct one. But we will carry on saying it was the wrong decision.

You are appeasing the usurper in so many ways -- economically, politically and militarily as well as in the media. When will the time come when, for every three appeasements to the usurper, you praise the Arabs just once?

APRIL GLASPIE: I thank you, Mr. President, and it is a great pleasure for a diplomat to meet and talk directly with the President. I clearly understand your message. We studied history at school That taught us to say freedom or death. I think you know well that we as a people have our experience with the colonialists.

Mr. President, you mentioned many things during this meeting which I cannot comment on on behalf of my Government. But with your permission, I will comment on two points. You spoke of friendship and I believe it was clear from the letters sent by our President to you on the occasion of your National Day that he emphasizes --

HUSSEIN: He was kind and his expressions met with our regard and respect.

Directive on Relations

GLASPIE: As you know, he directed the United States Administration to reject the suggestion of implementing trade sanctions.

HUSSEIN: There is nothing left for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."

GLASPIE: I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq.

HUSSEIN: But how? We too have this desire. But matters are running contrary to this desire.

GLASPIE: This is less likely to happen the more we talk. For example, you mentioned the issue of the article published by the American Information Agency and that was sad. And a formal apology was presented.

HUSSEIN: Your stance is generous. We are Arabs. It is enough for us that someone says, "I am sorry. I made a mistake." Then we carry on. But the media campaign continued. And it is full of stories. If the stories were true, no one would get upset. But we understand from its continuation that there is a determination.

GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.

Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.

You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.

HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

Shifting Price of Oil

TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression.

We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents.

As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.

Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests.

Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did not more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.

I talked about the same thing with a number of other Arab states. I explained the situation t brother King Fahd a few times, by sending envoys and on the telephone. I talked with brother King Hussein and with Sheik Zaid after the conclusion of the summit. I walked with the Sheik to the plane when he was leaving Mosul. He told me, "Just wait until I get home." But after he had reached his destination, the statements that came from there were very bad -- not from him, but from his Minister of Oil.

And after the Jidda agreement, we received some intelligence that they were talking of sticking to the agreement for two months only. Then they would change their policy. Now tell us, if the American President found himself in this situation, what would he do? I said it was very difficult for me to talk about these issues in public. But we must tell the Iraqi people who face economic difficulties who was responsible for that.

Talks with Mubarak

GLASPIE: I spent four beautiful years in Egypt.

HUSSEIN: The Egyptian people are kind and good and ancient. The oil people are supposed to help the Egyptian people, but they are mean beyond belief. It is painful to admit it, but some of them are disliked by Arabs because of their greed.

GLASPIE: Mr. President, it would be helpful if you could give us an assessment of the effort made by your Arab brothers and whether they have achieved anything.

HUSSEIN: On this subject, we agreed with President Mubarak that the Prime Minister of Kuwait would meet with the deputy chairman of the Revolution Command Council in Saudi Arabia, because the Saudis initiated contact with us, aided by President Mubarak's efforts. He just telephoned me a short while ago to say the Kuwaitis have agreed to that suggestion.

GLASPIE: Congratulations.

HUSSEIN: A protocol meeting will be held in Saudi Arabia. Then the meeting will be transferred to Baghdad for deeper discussion directly between Kuwait and Iraq. We hope we will reach some result. We hope that the long-term view and the real interests will overcome Kuwaiti greed.

GLASPIE: May I ask you when you expect Sheik Saad to come to Baghdad?

HUSSEIN: I suppose it would be on Saturday or Monday at the latest. I told brother Mubarak that the agreement should be in Baghdad Saturday or Sunday. You know that brother Mubarak's visits have always been a good omen.

GLASPIE: This is good news. Congratulations.

HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.

AZIZ: This is a journalistic exclusive.

GLASPIE: I am planning to go to the United States next Monday. I hope I will meet with President Bush in Washington next week. I thought to postpone my trip because of the difficulties we are facing. But now I will fly on Monday.


Exclusivism-Diabolical-Mind-Virus by Diehl its all too true! WHEE!

Exclusivism--The Mind Virus From Hell

by Dennis Diehl      December 2, 2007 jrhpwhjtdtomrvs

Exclusivism and just how to perpetuate that <absurd self-decreed> specialness is a hallmark mindset and goal of most religious faiths. It is a mind virus that seems to be rearing it's rather ugly head again. One way, one < jingoistic "ultimate truth" for spoon-fed comatose parrots> belief, easily defined rights and wrongs, one law, and one common acceptable mind virus will provide all the comfort and security we need. The Bible in our culture is often misread and misapplied to perpetuate more harm than good. That is what exclusivists do best.

Most religions, denominations and even rival churches of the same denomination but with slightly different practices, teach that they are the one true path to salvation and all others will simply suffer the fates. I live and work close to Bob Jones University, where being consigned to hell for non compliance is an art form. Around here it is not uncommon to read "Love Jesus, or burn forever in Hell." Try that one one on your kids. "Love Daddy, or I will kill you." That's child abuse isn't it??? Ask a Bob Jones student what they believe and it usually comes out in some form of "whatever they say."

When intolerant fundamentalists. who are infected with exlusivism speak, the goal is to spread the virus and get others to agree and support it's propagation. Once you are in, everyone not in, is out, and the virus then endeavors to become immune from attack through bluster, fear, shame and guilt. I recently tried to read a copy of the Philadelphia Trumpet, but gave up and opted for chewing ground glass which felt ever so much more pleasant.

Tell one of God's chosen they are biblically ignorant and watch what happens. So many sincerely misguided Christians and ministers are piously convicted, to be sure, but marginally informed in their education and perspectives.

While preaching exclusivism, they tend to leave out the being ignorant of the bible part. Tell one of God's chosen they are biblically ignorant and watch what happens. Too bad the being more like Jesus and less like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Elijah and Paul never really caught on in the many prophecy motivated and obcessed churches and denominations. The "we only" mentality is responsible for much of the division in Christianity today. Christianity seems to thrive on division for multiplication.

So how does exclusivism work? What must happen for it to be successful?

First of all it must do two things. It must ensure it can take up a long term residence in the host (Membership or maybe Meme-bership). A meme is an idea that is passed on from one human generation to another. It's the cultural <notation for> equivalent of a gene, the basic element of biological <or brain-numbing> inheritance. The term was coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. Secondly, it must bring about the proper conditions for spreading itself (Evangelism).

This is how it is done:

1. Promise reward for the effort, position, power, inside knowledge and specialness. It's better if the reward is "some day."

2. Threaten punishment for failure to grow, or pay, pray, stay and obey. This can take place almost any time now and/or in the future.

3. Convince them they are the chosen, exclusive and special people. Teach them that all others are false and there is only ONE right way to think or faith to express. Teach them that right way just happens be where they are.

4. Disable their ability to challenge or disbelieve the information given. Lower their immunity. Faith is superior to reason. "The wisdom of man is foolishness with God."

5. Establish a library of true literature and correct answers, for the faithful and discourage reading outside of this one true source, usually provided by the chief virus and his team of pathogens.

Once the parasite has been injected into the host, it will need to propagate itself or the virus will die. Follow these steps.

1. Emotionally, spiritually, psychologically or literally kill all immune persons. If you can't infect them, eliminate them.

2. Those you can't kill... intimidate and discriminate against. In religion, this is being disfellowshipped, demoted, censored or made to bring the watermelon to the picnic. Isolate them because such people, if not held in isolation can pass on immunity and resistance to the virus.

3. Encourage true believers to breed faster than false ones. Evangelism is a great tool for this.

4. Censor incoming information and remember to repeat "the wisdom of man is foolishness with God."..often, along with a lot of other scriptures that promote blind obedience. Most of these will be found in the Epistles of Paul.

5. Be prepared to give out disinformation and spread lies about your rivals. Demonise them. And remember, the bigger the lies, the louder you shout it at church and the more seriously concerned you appear for the welfare of the members, the more successful you will be.

Exclusivism is really a rather evil mind set. Us vs. them, Me vs. You, Chosen vs. unchosen, Christian vs. Pagan, True vs. False as defined by one <cult, cabal, self-anointed prophets > government, organization or person over another, is never going to turn out right.

Dennis Diehl is a former pastor who has outgrown the box of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity. DennisCDiehl@aol.comArticle Source:

 Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years,  who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism.  He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors. contact Author

Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

Blog Archive