I am the way...

After the excitement, or more like non-excitement, of the May 21st Rapture (the latest and most recent wrong prediction), I realized I had not yet put my thought on the famous "I am the way..." statement found in the New Testament from 2,000 years ago as I said I would in the rapture post.

Now, and back then, I wanted to share some thoughts on the single most passage from religious texts that is the reason for disunity, hate, death, and the feeling of superiority throughout the world. I am not trying to point fingers at my friends who believe the meaning of this passage is a statement to the monopoly of truth that Christianity claims to have, but rather to analyze what is being said in the passage. So, I apologize in advance to any reader who takes this the wrong way. But seriously, can anyone argue that the following passage is not the number one cause of death and “hate” in the history of this world?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” - Jesus in John 14:6

Is Jesus the only way to get to heaven or to God? This is what many Christians think and what gives them the idea that Christianity is the ONLY true religion in the world. When Jesus said "I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me" what was He saying exactly? Who was Jesus exactly? What was His exact relationship with God? Was Jesus God in essence? Or, was Jesus a Messenger that spoke the words of God given to Him to speak?

A long time ago, Jesus was talking to His disciples. He told them: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions (rooms): if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:1-6)

The translated word here as "way" in English comes from the original Greek word HODOS. The word HODOS means "road" or "highway" or “path.” In other words, Jesus was claiming that He is the true road or highway or path that leads to "my Father's house." What was Jesus saying? Was He saying that He, personally, was the only possible way to get to God’s house? We certainly know, and certainly Christians with a “monopoly” mindset know that God has sent other Prophets in the past. Hebrews 1:1-2, for one example, states:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son (Jesus)…”

Can anyone doubt or question that Abraham, Moses and all the other Hebrew Prophets weren't also from God... that they also "at sundry times and in divers manners," didn't also provide a “path” to God and that they too were also part of this "highway" process of the Covenant? Of course they can’t, but they apparently forget about the former messengers and favor the one they have been taught to know as “the ONLY” without investigating things for themselves.

Jesus DID say, however, that He was the "highway" that leads to God’s house. At the same time Jesus also clearly identified Himself with the other Prophets who had appeared before His time. And, He also prophesied that there was still yet more to come when He foretold the future appearance of his Father's Kingdom on earth at a time when all things will be made anew.

Also, Jesus made a number of other "I am" statements. For example, Jesus claimed to be bread (John 6:35), living bread (John 6:51), light (John 8:12 & 9:5), a door (John 10:7 & 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), resurrection (John 11:25), a vine (John 15:1), the first & the last (Revelation 1:11) and a root (Revelation 22:16). Jesus was also called the Anointed or the Anointing (Greek: Christ) and He was called the Son of God. He called Himself the Son of Man. And He also was referred to as the Representation of God (Greek: Logos) and the Presence (Greek: Parousia). Again, what was Jesus saying when He said things like these? Certainly no one would claim that Jesus was a literal loaf of bread, or that He literally was a door or that He literally was light or that He literally was a root. Evidently such statements have inner, spiritual meanings. This brings up a question that people have been asking for two thousand years. Who was Jesus? Is Jesus personally the only way for people to get to God or to heaven? Was Jesus God, as many Christians today think? Who did Jesus claim to be? What does the New Testament say about who Jesus was?

Many Christians today point to Jesus' assertion that "I and my Father are one…" (John 10:30) and "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father…" (John 14:9) as evidence that Jesus was God. The Apostle Paul, writing about Jesus, said that: "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16). In John 10:38 Jesus claimed that "that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." And in Colossians 2:9 Paul further asserted that: "For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." From these passages it is easy to conclude that "God was manifest in the flesh" of Jesus, that in Jesus dwelled "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily", that God was in Jesus and that Jesus was in God, that Jesus was one with God and that whoever had seen Jesus had also seen God. This is pretty convincing evidence that Jesus personally was God in essence.... except for that fact that Jesus said many things that separate Him from God like "…for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and many, many, more. How can Jesus be God if God is greater than Jesus?

Jesus Himself defined His relationship to God. Jesus said: "…the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake" (John 14:10-11). "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49). When these "who do you say that I am" statements are looked at with the perspective of this “additional” evidence, we get a much different picture of Jesus' true relationship to God. According to these statements: God manifested himself to Jesus; God dwelled in Jesus; God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God; Jesus was one with God; Whoever had seen Jesus had also seen God. But at the same time: Jesus is not God since God is greater than Jesus and that God had sent Jesus. Doesn’t it make sense that the God part that dwelled in Jesus is the part that was doing the speaking and the mouth of Jesus spoke only the words that God gave to Him to speak?

These are difficult concepts to try to get an illiterate, uneducated, unsophisticated audience of two thousand years ago to understand. It's easy to see how such relationships could be misunderstood. At the same time, this explanation of Jesus' relationship to God makes the other difficult concepts in the Christian Bible make perfect sense. For example, at one time Jesus said: ”I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). This statement is identical to Jesus' "highway" statement. Jesus is the “path” to God... and people who eat the “flesh” of Jesus "shall (not will) live for ever." Ask your inner self, when Jesus said that anyone who eats "my flesh" "shall live forever"... was He saying that people should eat His literal flesh? Of course He wasn’t. Was He speaking of rituals, priests or sacraments? No. Instead, Jesus was speaking of spiritual characteristics found inside that His followers who had understood His true teachings will manifest and teach to others. This is what He meant when Jesus spoke of leading people along the path to God and transforming their lives. In none of these passages was Jesus speaking literally.

In John 6:38, Jesus also claims to have come down from heaven. When a number of rabbis, present in the crowd that day, heard Jesus claim that He had come down from heaven, they began to ”murmur at him” (John 6:41) and they asked "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” (John 6:42). Good question, isn’t it? The rabbis knew that Jesus had been born as a child just like everyone else. They knew that He had a mother and a father. So it's not surprising that they would have wondered, "How could Jesus possibly have come 'down from heaven'?"

The same was true about the disciples of Jesus. When they heard Jesus claim that He had come "down from heaven" they were shocked into disbelief. They knew that Jesus' claim couldn't possibly be true... at least not literally. They said: "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” (John 6:60). From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed Him (John 6:66). For the most part, people today believe that Jesus had only twelve Apostles. But… many don't know that Jesus also had either 70 or 72 disciples (depending on which early manuscript you read). It was these other disciples and not His Apostles who "turned back and no longer followed him." It was these other disciples who abandoned Him forever. Both the hostile Jewish religious leaders and Jesus' own beloved disciples found it impossible to believe His statement that He had come down from heaven. From what they knew about the life of Jesus, having grown up in Nazareth with His mother Mary, they knew that this couldn't possibly be true, because they thought that He was speaking literally. They thought that Jesus was telling them that He had come down from heaven in his fleshly, physical body.

The disciples that walked away did not have the understanding to see what Jesus was really saying. While standing there, watching His disciples walk away, knowing that they were not going to ever come back, Jesus explained this "mystery" of His coming down from heaven. Jesus said: ”It is the spirit (PNEUMA) that quickeneth; the flesh (SARX) profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit (PNEUMA), and they are life” (John 6:63). Think about this, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit." Jesus was trying to explain that when He said such startling things as "I came down from heaven", He was not speaking of His own personal, physical, fleshly body coming down from heaven. Instead, Jesus was trying to tell us that it was the "Spirit" of God which dwelled in Him that had descended from heaven... and not His physical body.

The body of Jesus did not literally descend from heaven two thousand years ago. The Spirit of God that spoke through Jesus did. Jesus was not literally a highway, but those who listened to and followed the words of God which came from His mouth were led to God. Jesus was not literally bread and He was not suggesting that people eat His literal body. Jesus was not literally light, a door, a vine or a root or a star. Jesus was, at the time that the Bible was written, the most recent in a long progression of Teachers sent to deliver a Message from God. Each one of these Teachers spoke the words of God. Jesus was the "way." So were Moses and all the other Prophets of God. Jesus was the Christ ("the one who is Anointed by God" in Greek). Jesus was the Messiah (also "the one who is Anointed by God"... in Hebrew). This Anointing was another way of saying that God dwelled in Jesus and that God spoke through Jesus. This Anointing or “Christ” also spoke, in varying degrees, through all the other Prophets of God who also spoke the words of God. Take a look at just a few statements made by a few people that claimed to have a message from God to share, and see if you can see the same voice (Anointing Spirit) speaking to their followers:

“This is the way [to God]; walk in it.” Isaiah 30:21

“I am the way, the truth and the light…” Zoroaster

“I am the way and the truth and the life…” Jesus (John 14:6)

“Just this path, there is no other…” Buddha

“Follow Me: this is the right way [to God].” Muhammad

“This is the Way of God for all the inhabitants of earth and heaven and all that lieth betwixt them. No God is there but Me, the Almighty, the Inaccessible, the Most Exalted.” The Báb

“This is the Way of God unto all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Bahá’u’lláh

From age to age, in every culture and throughout history, many Prophets appeared who have been sent to bring God's message to humanity and to bring people to the light. There has been only one Anointing Spirit of God. This Anointing Spirit (Christ) is "the Way, the Truth and the Life". This Anointing Spirit (Christ) is the only way to the Father. It is the Anointing Spirit (Christ) who is "the same yesterday, today and forever." This Anointing Spirit (Christ) has been in many Messengers and called by different names. Think about it…

Hypocrisy

Despite what the picture above displays (which is from a rally at the proposed Islamic Community Center today) the adversaries of the NYC Islamic Center (Park51) hold tightly to their “new” reason for the opposition, even though it is easily seen through by people that don’t have short-term memory loss.

This is only my thought, but I think the opponents of the Community Center realized a few weeks ago they do not have a Constitutional leg to stand on, so now we hear, “it’s because of the 9/11 families…they shouldn’t have to go to the ground zero site and see a mosque…it’s the 9/11 families that we care about.” OK, that’s legitimate, even though it’s not a Mosque and it would not be in sight of the ground zero site. I can understand the sentiment behind that reason.

BUT……..let’s be honest for a second. The opposition to the Community Center comes mostly from the GOP and voters that support the Republican Party. I have no proof to support this claim other than watching the news, reading OpEd’s, and hearing different opinions from the community I live in. There is no poll out there I’m aware of to measure this….but I would be confident that at least 9 out of 10 people opposed to the Park51 building would consider themselves Republican.

So…to get to the point of this thought… Basically there are a bunch of Republicans out there claiming they care for the NYC families directly affected by the attacks of 9/11 (including the 300+ Muslim victims of 9/11), then how in the heck are we to believe that to be true when just last month, EACH AND EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED AGAINST A BILL THAT WOULD PROVIDE HEALTHCARE TO THE 9/11 VICTIMS AND FIRST RESPONDERS????????????? I mean, if you want to claim you care for someone, would you not help them each and every time you have an opportunity? This is not the first time a representative of the GOP has disrespected families of the 9/11 attacks and probably won’t be the last.

I would have believed their latest reason to not support equality in this country had I not remembered this from last month. Seriously???

From Genesis to protests...

I wonder if the American people protesting the erection of Muslim community centers and mosques realize they are asking for our elected officials to do some very unconstitutional things. I wonder if these people think it was Islam that attacked us on 9/11. I wonder if these people realize that saying we are at war with Islam is like saying we would be at war with Christianity if just one of the 25,000 plus sects of Christianity attacked us in some way. You know, because if we were attacked by the Amish, of course we should include all Christians in the blame game (sarcasm here folks).

I am completely lost when I hear American Christians make comments like, ”Islam is a cult….Muslims worship a false God…Muslims are agents of Satan.” When I was a kid, I was taught every person that believed in God, believed in the same God, they only knew Him by a different name. I learned that from a Christian Sunday school teacher.

I also remember a day of fishing at the dam here in Winfield as a young teen-ager when I was in a discussion with an older gentleman about Islam. The man, who then was about 55-60 years of age explained to me that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believed the same things, they only differed on what he called the “Middle-Man.” The “Middle-Men” of course being Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. He added, ”I choose to follow Jesus because that’s who my dad followed and his dad before him. Besides, it too late for me to change and learn about something new when it works just fine for me. It’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks…”

I have noticed mindsets like this and of my Sunday school teacher have been fading away in the Christian community, especially in the last decade. I get the sense that these mindsets have stopped being taught in favor of focusing only on the small differences. These differences are the ones that only vary on the surface and deal mostly with social or cultural practices and critics will paint a picture of contrast. But when one looks at the eternal spiritual teachings of every great world faith, a picture of harmony comes into focus.

I understand why it is important for the American Christian to feel like their religion is the only right one on the planet and it’s not just prevalent here. But when the most vocal American Christians seem to be the ones wanting Muslims to be treated less than American, I have to offer the following food for thought…The Bible says Islam is true and blessed by God. Here’s the scoop…

The founders of each religion (in reality each revelation of the one religion of God) foretell of the next ones to come. The tribe in which Jesus was born is described in Micah 5:2. In the book of Ruth (4:1-11) we find Boaz, from who Jesus was a direct descendant was of that tribe.

Muhammad, who accepted and claimed that Moses and Jesus as true and from God, said, “As for me, my Lord hath guided me into a straight path; a true religion, the creed of Abraham, the sound in faith; for he was not of those who join gods with Gods” (Sura 6:162). Judaism and Christianity are also outgrowths of the creed of Abraham.

In Genesis 17:6, we see that God promised to make great nations (faiths) out of Abraham. In 17:20, Ishmael, Abraham’s son, received the promise of fathering a great nation, begetting 12 princes, and was blessed by God. It is interesting to note that Shi’ah Islam had 12 successive Imams who reigned after Muhammad’s passing. Tradition says that the 12th Imam disappeared and is expected to return and reveal Himself at “the time of the end.” So, as clear as day, the OT promises the rise of a faith for the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) and God blessing it. Also interesting to note, in Genesis 16:12 it states about Ishmael, “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” Humm, a faith that dwells with the brethren of Abraham and is against everyone and everyone is against them. Does this not sound like Islam to you?

Muhammad asked the Arabs of His time why they had not accepted the truth of Moses and Jesus and all the prophets gone before Them. They could not follow Him without first acknowledging the truth of the former Messengers of God. Concerning Moses, He said, “And of old gave we Moses the guidance and we made the children of Israel the heritors of the Book-a guidance and warning to men endued with understanding” (Sura 40:56). Moses even foretold the coming of Muhammad to His followers in Deuteronomy 18:15. If this prophecy had referred to Jesus, the term “seed,” rather than “brethren” would have been used. The prophecies of the “nations” gathering in Israel in the “end” also speak of the validity of Islam and its source.

My point is this… would it not be better to understand something rather than to know nothing about it and call it false?? Not only are these protesters abasing themselves as Americans, they are fighting against something foretold in their Holy Book.

Freedom...reduced to a marketing campaign.

Before I start on this thought of mine, allow me to make one thing perfectly clear… Not one word I write in the following paragraphs is intended to criticize those who have served, either voluntarily or through the draft, in any branch of the US Military. Being both the son, and the son-in-law of veterans, I have nothing but respect for our vets and have an understanding of their service to our great nation, their courage, and their fortitude against all odds. After many conversations with them, and friends that have served, I have developed a belief that most vets served while truly believing in the reasons our nation has given for the wars we engaged in and did so because they love our country and believed what they were doing was in its best interest. As you will see, I question only those in charge and those that may perpetuate what I perceive as a big lie. So…let me begin.

This past holiday weekend I felt bombarded by the marketing campaign, “Support our troops fighting for our freedom.” I got to thinking about how the two “wars” we are currently involved in protects my freedom. A rational freedom protecting reason still escapes me.

I watched an Independence Day themed commercial on TV which stated, “Veterans gave us the right to free speech…. Veterans gave us the right to a free press…. Veterans gave us the right to vote…. Veterans gave us civil rights…. etc. etc. etc.” My first thought was NO!! Veterans did not give me those rights any more than politicians, voters, or grizzly bears did. By creating me, God gave me those rights, which are natural freedoms created in the nature of being human. If you honestly think about it, whether you believe humans came into being through an act of the divine, a process of evolution, or a combination of both, we collectively started out as a small number of independent individuals with complete freedom to choose our own path in this world. It was only with the advent of individuals or entities that started to coerce others, either by force or persuasion, to obey them did our freedoms become something in need of defense. When you think about it with complete honesty in mind, the most accurate thing that can be said for veterans in this regard is they either helped to defend freedom from attack or helped to restore lost freedoms. Since it is not truthful to say, “The troops gave us freedom,” we should be accurate when discussing the role of troops in our daily lives and throughout our history. I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that the troops “fight to protect our freedom” for any war in our recent history is looked with complete honesty as well.

Let’s take a look and see if veterans of the US military have fought either to protect or restore our freedom in every major war or conflict we’ve participated in since 1776:

American Revolutionary War -- There can be no questioning the fact that the veterans of the American Revolution were fighting to restore lost freedoms. The interests of the colonists being ruled by a king across the Atlantic did not always come into consideration in Brittan’s parliament. Taxation without representation, being forced to provide quarters (housing) for British soldiers, and other oppressive measures were forced on the colonists. Since they were not represented in the British government, they had to choose between declaring independence and taking up arms to defend their homes against the onslaught to come and living oppressed lives. The end result was 13 free and independent states with a brand new federal government. The veterans of this war are certainly to be commended for having restored freedom to America.

The War of 1812 -- A somewhat solid case can be made for veterans defending the freedoms of our citizens during this war since the biggest reason we waged war was because of the British acts of supplying arms to the Native Americans through Canada. Also, the British did try to burn down Washington DC and blockaded much of the Atlantic coast. However, on the flipside, part of the reason why we waged this war was an attempt to push out Brittan out of Canada. This exact desire gave rise to the War Hawk Politician. But nonetheless, the Veterans of this war did in fact fight to protect our freedoms at the time.

The Mexican American War -- Again, a solid case can be made for the Vets fighting to protect our freedoms in this war too. After Texas had declared their independence from Mexico and the set back at the Alamo which helped drive Santa Anna and his forces back to Mexico, the United States annexed Texas. Then the troubles began. Like in the War of 1812, U.S. expansionism played a role in President Polk’s desire to get the approval of Congress to declare war (at least he got the approval unlike the Presidents of the last half century). Texas ended up gaining independence from Mexico and a nation to belong to and the U.S. gained a lot of territory in the deal. It does seem, in hindsight, that this war could have been avoided and the rest of the country was not in danger in any way by Mexico, but yes, American freedoms were protected and restored by the Vets of this war.

The Civil War -- Most history books will teach that the Union soldier fought to end slavery (a noble act) and the Confederate soldier fought to preserve slavery (a not-so-noble act). The reasons for this war are often hidden. Allow me to sum it up by saying both sides were fighting to protect freedom in a way that they interpreted the word. So yes, Civil War vets fought to protect our freedoms.

The Spanish American War -- There was no charade of protecting American’s freedoms in this war. It was all about American imperialism, nothing more. The vets of this war helped liberate Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam from Spanish rule, but then those same vets turned their attention to keeping those same liberated souls under American rule. Hundreds of thousands of recently liberated citizens lost their lives trying to liberate themselves from the very same force that just liberated them from Spain. Once they finally did free themselves from U.S. rule, they were subject to dictatorships in which America chose due to natural resource interests. At no time were American freedoms at risk during this war.

World War I -- At this moment in time, there is no conceivable way American freedoms were in jeopardy during this war, even with the so-called “Zimmermann Telegram” (a telegram that was intercepted between Germany and Mexico). No Americans (except for a few strategically set-up by President Wilson in Europe) and no American “territories” came under attack. This was mostly a European war spilling over into the Pacific and parts of Africa. This war had much to do with protecting freedoms, but none of it was American freedom. After this war, “Armistice Day” was created, now known as “Veterans Day.”

World War II -- Americans came under attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor and this incident that pushed us into the war. At that time, Hitler was having nothing but trouble holding onto what he occupied in Europe and couldn’t even take the island of Brittan. When you hear someone say, “If it weren’t for our troops, we’d all be speaking German now,” it must be taken with a grain of salt since it would have taken something miraculous in order for Germany and its’ allies to have had the opportunity to threaten American freedom at that time. OK, now with that being said, our involvement in WWII was a noble one indeed if you understand that our fellow world citizens were being threatened and were in need of our assistance. An attempt to colonize an entire continent is something to get involved in, but…American Freedom was not at stake during the conflict.

Korean War -- This was a war against communism rather than protecting Americans. It was referred to as a “police action” rather than war because no declaration of war was obtained in Congress, and rightfully so because once again, everybody knew America was not threatened by North Korea. We entered under Truman via the UN, and rightfully so since we were a member of this international organization that through consultation, approved of this action. Veterans of this war fought to a stalemate with honor, but did nothing to further American Freedom.

Vietnam War -- Like in Korea, the U.S. entered this war to prevent communism, this time in South Vietnam and it later became known as our “Communist Containment” policy. Once again, veterans of this war fought with honor following the orders handed to them by politicians, but American Freedom was not at stake.

Operation Desert Storm or The Gulf War -- This war was not even sold to us as one defending American Freedoms. The so-called “abuses against humanity” reasons we were told about were all debunked within a year after finding out that a public relations firm was hired to drum up hatred against Iraq. This war, to put it bluntly, was all about oil and those that make their living selling it. To imagine that our leader and his officials sent our troops into danger to further line the pockets of oil men is just disgusting.

The Afghan War and The Iraq War -- I lump these two together not only for brevity, but because the justification and the sentiment behind the two are virtuously the same. First of all, there is no disputing the fact that both of these wars are illegal. The UN Charter we signed in 1945 and later ratified into law, made our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq illegal. You can disbelieve this all you want but the truth stands tall and steadfast. The U.S. Constitution says that international treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, that are ratified are “part of the supreme law of the land” in the U.S. So, along with the international laws we’ve broken, we can also add our own laws to our rap sheet. Fact after fact has come to light after Congress was duped into voting for the use of military. Those facts show that we were all lied to by our President and his officials. Even if an alternative reality popped up and the lies we were told were true, American Freedom was not the reason for sending our nations’ best to these wars.

To sum up, it is fair (and accurate) to say “American Freedom” has not been fought for since 1865. Let me say it again, this is not an attempt to disrespect American veterans who generally neither choose to go to war nor decide how they will be fought. But my thought is rather than perpetuate a “lie” on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day and recycle the cliché empty comments like “Our Veterans gave us freedom…” or “Our Veterans fight for our freedoms,” would it not be better to consider that we wouldn't need two of the three holidays listed above if our elected leaders did not insist on involving us and our troops in endless and pointless conflicts? Would we not be better off with two fewer holidays than thousands and thousands of psychologically scarred, wounded, and dead soldiers? The answer to that question is carved in cemetery headstones across this nation.

Will we ever heed the warning of President Eisenhower and stop our madness and addiction? All of us were born with inalienable rights, just as the Declaration of Independence states. Those rights “pre-exist” the formation of our Government as our Founding Fathers stated. If we had a legitimate and “honest” foreign policy, our citizens would understand it and it would not need to be embellished with talk of “fighting for freedom.”

Ponder this for me… Think of your local police or fire departments. They serve a clear-cut purpose that people understand. You do not see citizens repeat phrases or slogans in order to justify their existence. Collectively, we do not claim that police and firemen protect our freedoms, as if they are part of some kind of civil rights organization. Our physical security and our freedoms are not the same thing. In most cases, U.S. foreign policy goals are not even related to our physical security or freedom. The military should be used to defend our freedoms and our Constitution, nothing more.

The TEA Party-Why are they so upset?

I saw an ad today “approved by Todd Tiahrt,” a Kansas Congressman running for the open Senate seat left by Sam Brownback, who is running for Governor of Kansas. Tiahrt is really proud of his TEA Party endorsement as you can see in the video. Given that Tiahrt is about as good as collecting earmarked money (mostly aircraft industry related fed money) as the next guy, I was shocked to learn from Tiahrt himself in his ad that he was considered to be a “TEA Party Hero.”

I then wanted to find out just what the TEA Party stands for. Because I have to be honest, my perception of them up to this point has been angry white people upset about our country electing a non-white President. What I found, is the TEA Party members consider themselves to be the “conservative” conservatives. They want things to be like they were in the late 1700’s, regardless of what has changed since then. Basically, the military should be the only thing our tax dollars should pay for.

Below is the “Contract from America” the TEA Party came up with (followed by some commentary by yours truly). Now, after reading it, you will see just who this “contract” would benefit the most (the rich), but alas, the corporations behind this fake grassroots movement have fooled many middle class and low income people into pushing their agenda for them (see last paragraph).

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. -- Actually, this is a great idea, and redundant. I have no problem with this whatsoever. The Constitution is very clear that Congress (both House and Senate) has only the powers explicitly granted in the Constitution. So it seems like a good idea and reasonable that each law passed by Congress should be able to state which part of the Constitution allows Congress to make such a law. Being that the Constitution is a VERY BROAD document, there should be no trouble showing which article grants the authority to pass a law. I do find it a bit redundant though, since the federal and supreme courts exist for this very purpose. Let’s take it a step further and perhaps form a “new” agency free from political strings to protect us from the activists on the Supreme Court that have recently rendered decisions that violate the Constitution in favor of multi-national and foreign corporations that have given them the rights of individuals and does not restrict their influence on elections (look up “Citizens United”). I have read the Constitution specifically for this authority and challenge anybody to cite the article that allows corporations to be treated as individuals.

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. -- I agree with this for the most part. I agree that “cap and trade” should be rejected, but only because it is too weak and doesn’t go far enough. The only way to rid ourselves of pollution is to force people not to pollute and not allow them to pay for polluting. Establish an initial level and force at least a 20% reduction per year until the effects are virtually gone. This is a practical use of regulations that will actually protect our freedoms as Americans, our freedom to access to breathable air, a necessity of life. I’ll give the TEA Party credit for recognizing that pollution is a problem that needs to be addressed by government intervention.

3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. -- Who doesn’t want a balanced budget? Here’s the reality check though…this is impossible. There has never been a “balanced budget.” We have had national debt since day one of our country and you can not have a balanced budget as long as there’s debt. AND, if you’re arguing that there should NEVER be a tax hike at the same time, then you’re making an unreasonable argument. And the “2/3’s majority” thing…not only is it unconstitutional as the Constitution reads, but it would deter the Government to take action against pressing needs like we did at the beginning of the current economic downturn. California tried this and is the worst shape it has ever been in and was forced to make cuts to many necessary items, mostly education. Speaking of California, why do many of the people at TEA Party rallies idolize Ronald Reagan? The simple truth is that he more than tripled the national debt at the helm.

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution. -- I agree that the tax code is confusing and excessive, BUT, they are that way because in today’s world there is a multitude of businesses, investments, and various financial tools that can’t all be covered by a “simple” tax code. This demand is equivalent to saying, “we should get rid of a complex code full of little tiny loopholes and replace it with an easy system with a few humongous loopholes.” A “fair single-rate tax system” would create a huge windfall for the rich. This is why they favor such a system and is pushing the Conservative base, which is mostly made up of the middle class, to believe in things that don’t benefit themselves. This system would slash their taxes by a third and remove taxes on savings, investments, inheritance, and capital gains. A sort of class warfare has been waged on the middle class and poor for years by the rich, and people have become aware only recently when the conservative tax policies have shone a light on the fact that the top tax rate (the rich) is at historical lows. The top tax rate on the wealthiest Americans is currently at 35%. During the Great Depression until the 1960’s, the same tax rate was at 90%. It was then lowered 70%. The wealthiest Americans face much less taxes on their discretionary income. A message to middle class and lower income people---DON’T let the wealthiest Americans tell you which tax system you should be in favor of, the reason is obvious.

5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. -- Both sides of the spectrum agree that all of our government agencies should function within the authority of the Constitution. Both sides also agree there is way too much spent on waste with tax dollars. This is a reasonable demand, BUT, there are a few problems that will certainly arise if this would come to pass. First, the most obvious and probably not even thought of by the authors of this “contract,” would be that it would cost a lot of tax payer money to figure out how to “save money.” Are the TEA Party people ready to spend the tax payer money needed to get this started, especially in these economic times? This in essence would be a “spend money to save money” endeavor, one that could provide a good return on investment, but the timing of it stinks right now IMHO. Is the TEA Party ready to take a good hard look at every agency, even ones the conservatives support? Like the military or corporate welfare as examples? The military is by far where the most money is spent on waste, followed by corporate welfare.

6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. -- This is “pie in the sky” thinking. This would NEVER happen. The only way this would be possible is if we decide to quit going to war, if we never have a recession, if Mother Nature suddenly quits giving us natural disasters, etc. Yes, it would be nice if Congress knew exactly how much they needed to spend each year and then budgeted for that exact amount. Unfortunately, we elect Presidents that say, “Let’s invade Iraq” without justification and fail to have it paid for by asking Americans to pay a little more through taxes.

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care. Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. -- First of all, the recently passed health care system the contract refers to is not “government run.” It is also every bit as “competitive” and “free market” as the previous “system,” which is the exact same reason why it is going to fail to make health care and health insurance “more affordable” to working Americans. The TEA Party and conservatives should be giddy about this bill that passed. All it does is force more American customers to buy insurance from the existing private insurance companies through mandates and subsidizing the poor. If you think we now have “socialized medicine” here, you haven’t read the bill. The above solution does NOTHING to help the 50+ million Americans without health insurance. It does not STOP the 50,000+ people from dying every year due to reasons resulting from lack of health insurance. It does not STOP the health industry practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. It does NOTHING to stop the huge bills that come with a serious illness or injury which is the number one cause of personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures. As for opening up the insurance system beyond state lines, did we not learn a lesson from caving into credit card companies? Credit companies fled to states with the least amount of consumer protection, and guess what? Record profits followed at their customers and tax payer’s expense. Basically, this would deter individual states from passing laws that are in the interest of their residents. This also shoots down the theory that conservatives favor state’s rights. The entire world knows that the Tea Party conservatives don’t like health care reform, but this is the first time I have seen a call to end Medicare and Medicaid from them. This is an issue stance that is even too extreme for the GOP. Perhaps the TEA Party wants to eliminate Social Security as well?

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy. Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. -- Geez…how do I say this without making it seem like I’m speaking to a child….ummm, here goes: Ok… those “proven” energy sources are not so “proven” and will not even come close to providing enough energy for our independence from foreign oil all while not providing us much of a “reserve.” Whew! Basic fact: There is a finite (limited, restricted, fixed, etc.) amount of energy sources on the planet to consume, AND only a small fraction of this finite amount is actually within the borders of the USA (less than 3%). We currently use around 25% of the world’s energy sources. That’s basic math and common sense. So can we stop debating over a few areas of oil/coil/etc, and begin to start actually ending our dependence on foreign sources by exploring NEW, RENEWABLE energy technologies? This kills two birds with one stone: dependency on foreign oil and our environmental dilemma. It’s a win-win for America.

9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. -- I think both sides of the spectrum are tired of seeing good bills pass, later to find out many legislators managed to sneak in a few costly, unrelated projects in their home state, especially when these projects involve things like building a museum to honor the history of the banana. Basic fact: Earmarks went down 15.5% this year. So does that not meet the demand of this item?

10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. -- (Ummm…see item #3 above) Never mind the FACT that over 95% of Americans paid less taxes this year, the scary thing is that 88% of TEA Party people believe this is not true. Along with a few other tax deductions, the majority of these tax breaks came along with the stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) passed under the Obama Administration. When all said and done (according to the facts), the only increased taxes were to those making $500,000 per year and above, and they are modest at best. So in other words, the above article wants to repeal the modest tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. Do you still think the Tea Party is a grassroots organization? Think again.

Now since the TEA Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already,” let me offer just a few facts on taxes for the past year, facts that shouldn’t be ignored by members of the TEA Party:

*“TEA Party Hero” Sarah Palin recently misled a TEA Party rally saying that “Americans on average now work 90 days to cover their tax obligations” (Tax Freedom Day), she failed to follow that up by mentioning that this year, Tax Freedom Day came earlier than when G.W. Bush was in office.

*Over 40% of Americans did not pay income taxes this year. None, zero, nada.

*For most of middle-class America, personal income tax levels have been at the lowest rate during their lifetimes. The lowest they’ve been since 1955.

*Contrary to the way people have been taught to believe, the stimulus bill lowered taxes for 98% of working Americans.

So, let’s assume for a moment that TEA Party represents America, an America based in reality. The facts show for TEA Party members that “Tax Freedom Day” came earlier than last year and at least 40% of TEA Party members did not pay ANY taxes this year and their personal income tax levels are the lowest they’ve ever been in a lifetime and 98% of the TEA Party saw a reduction in taxes paid. Then why do only 2% of them believe their taxes went down and 64% believe Obama raised taxes? There are ONLY three possible conclusions….: 1. The vast majority of TEA Partiers are extremely wealthy. 2. They are detached from the facts and have no sense of reality. 3. Their anti-Obama (African-American) sentiment is being taken advantage of by a PAC that started the “TEA Party Express” which takes their good faith donations to the so-called “grassroots” movement and distributes it to the same old tax-less and spend-more conservative candidates. Don’t believe #3 is a possibility? Read this, this, and this.

So which is it? #1. #2. or #3? And just what are they so upset about?

The big farce

Everyone is playing the “blame game” when it comes to the Deep Water Horizon (BP) oil spill. Both sides are politicizing the disaster and using it to enforce their stance on our nation’s energy plan. The two sides agree on only one thing, we must end our dependence on foreign oil. Well that’s a nice thing to agree on I must say, but one side has got to start realizing that they have a faulty, unsustainable plan in order for us to collectively move forward as a nation on this issue. One side thinks we can sustain our oil consumption by expanding domestic drilling. It is foolish to think this is possible. We consume 25% of the world’s oil and have around 2% of the oil. Do you see the fault in that logic? The other side wants to start building renewable energy solutions and is being fought every inch of the way, mostly by politicians that are supported by oil companies.

As far as the “blame game” for the current disaster, here’s my .02 cents which is based on weighing both sides of the argument and investigating things for myself rather than merely being a sheep, like most political apologists out there.

Sheeez… W. Bush and Cheney just keep popping up as the source for many of today’s problems here in America. Following is just a couple of many events that opened the door to why this spill is so difficult to stop and contain, as well as why we (collectively) were so unprepared to handle this assault on nature…

The biggest farce -: The downfall started in 2005, when the MMS (DOI’s Minerals Management Service), the agency that is supposed to regulate drilling, changed long standing regulations and designated the oil companies as being “in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity” (Page 11-Section 250.227{a}). The MMS adopted these shortly after several “secret” (no transcripts available from the meeting sessions) meetings with the one and only Oil friendly VP, Dick Cheney. Yep, this is no joke. After meeting with Cheney, the MMS changed policy and said that the oil companies are in the best position of determining the impact their operations would have on the environment. This is akin to letting a rapist be the one responsible for providing security to a female dormitory.

So Cheney, being the good ol’ conservative and oil man he is, urged the MMS to shift the responsibility of determining the “worst case scenario” of a possible spill from an independent agency (MMS or EPA) to the oil companies. This is important because before being OK’ed to start a drilling project, the possible risks are weighed. And when BP declared it would only be 10,000 barrels per day spilled into the gulf, and reality put that number around 150,000, it is easy to see why all the big oil companies and the “Drill Baby Drill” crowd proclaimed that offshore drilling is safe (Obama himself declared it was safe just weeks before the explosion) and the project was approved based on this false information. Turns out, you guessed it, BP low-balled the impact the deep water horizon project would have on the environment in order to “just drill baby drill.”

Also, this “new rule” allowed oil companies to be pre-qualified to be exempt from environmental review, which was originally created for very minor projects like maintenance buildings being built on hiking trails and such. Good job Dick!!! You are a true conservative that believes that our environment is there for the taking rather than a giver of physical life. All appearances paint the picture that Dick thinks the world is coming to an end (See blog posts called Hijacked Part 1 and Hijacked Part 2), so why care anyway?

One other farce, er, I mean “rule change” - A rule change 2 years ago in April 2008 by the Bush/Cheney MMS allowed BP to avoid filing a plan for managing a major spill or blowout. Here’s the farce…the oil companies were no longer required to file these “spill plans” if only 1 or 5 “conditions” apply to the project. Previously it was required that any company drilling deeper than 1,312 feet would be designated as a “surface facility” and be required to file a blowout plan. BP argued (and won) that since it would be drilling at 5,000 feet plus, it does not meet the definition of a “surface facility” and was able to get approved without having to come under the scrutiny of being qualified to stop and maintain a spill. I might also add that these MMS “officials” in charge of OKing projects have been caught receiving cocaine and hookers from oil companies, as well as “kick-backs.” Geez….I guess it’s kinda easy to agree to something when the person trying to get you to agree with them is giving you money, cocaine, and hookers (that is sarcasm my friends).

The list goes on and on about the MMS under the Bush Administration changing rules, accepting bribes, and ethics violations. The sad thing is the polarization of our country will not allow for the truth to be clear. We need to get off of oil and fossil fuels….right now!!!!

What the ?

Louisiana Federal Judge Martin Feldman (Don’t confuse him and elevate him to the status of the late great Marty Feldman), ruled last week that the imposed moratorium by the US-DOI & DOJ was to be ended. Turns out, he had selfish reasons to render his decision. Money.

Like most rich GOPers, he wanted to get his money and decided it was better to lift the ban on offshore drilling, and then he sold his stocks in what appears to be an attempt to hide the fact he has huge interests in the success of oil companies, including subsidiaries and partners of BP.

The scary thing about this is the people, who think his decision is right, don’t see the huge conflict of interest as a problem and also can not see the logical reasoning behind the moratorium.

It is time to change the influence of oil. What can the “Small People” do? This is sickening. I say to support any effort or person that wants to push our country into modern times by ending the “oil madness.”