News Intelligence Analysis





Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Liberal
(And Vote for Democrats)


By Katherine Yurica



Formerly titled: Bloodguilty Churches 
Why Bush’s Agenda Is Immoral and an Abomination to God


January 19, 2005
Updated January 21, 2005
Updated Janurary 25, 2005
Updated August 7, 2005, with a portion of the preface from the book.
Updated August 23, 2008 with the Foreword by Dennis Crews and the title change*




Editor's Note: On June 3, 2008, David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the right-wing Discovery Institute, published a book titled, How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative. We think Klinghoffer's book deserves to be answered. Rather than write a new article, however, we decided to rename this essay because there is an urgent need to quickly tell the other side of the story. We in fact originally published the biblical basis for the liberal Christian's view in January of 2005. The book, titled Bloodguilty Churches by Katherine Yurica is still available as originally written in paperback. In addition, the Ben Yehuda Press, a Jewish book publisher has announced that it will be publishing a response to Klinghoffer in August titled How Would God REALLY Vote? A Jewish Response to David Klinghoffer by Larry Yudelson



*Now, for the first time on August 23, 2008, the entire paperback titled Bloodguilty Churches by Katherine Yurica is available here for your reading, free of charge, including the newly added Foreword by Dennis Crews. Only the title has changed. To read the foreword and the preface click here. Otherwise just scroll down.



To those readers who wish to provide members of congress with a shortened version of this essay appropriate for helping legislators to know what the biblical position is on issues they will be voting on, you may send your Senators or Representatives a link to The Yurica Report's Congressional Handbook, This is a PDF file at 494 kb. The URL address is:






NEW: The Foreword by Dennis Crews

From the Preface to the Book

In the Beginning
Invade Iraq or What's a Preemptive Strike?
Lies About the Threat of War
What Does the Bible Say About Preemptive Strikes?

The War Fairs
What Does the Bible Say About Profiting from War?

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
Do Religious Conservatives Have the Moral High Ground?
Religious Conservatives Agenda for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
What Does the Bible Say About How a Nation Must Treat the Poor and the Sick?

Religious Conservative's Immigration Plans
Deregulate Health and Safety and Environmental Laws
What Does the Bible Say About Rigging Devices?
Mr. Bush’s “Justice” Versus the Bible’s Justice
The Development of the Biblical Justice System
Be Careful Not to Commit Judicial Murders: The Texas Clemency Memos
Is Mr. Bush's Tort Reform Biblical?
The Bible's Criminal and Civil Code System
What Does the Bible Say About Abortions?

GOP Operatives as Slanderers and Hooligans, Scorner's and Ridiculers
What's Wrong With Today's Churches and 'Christians'?
Profile of the Man God Hates

End Notes



Or just scroll down.



He that hath an ear,
let him hear
what the spirit saith to the churches.”
Revelations 2:29



Daniel Belteshazzar (D.B.) served as an advisor in three administrations, though his service was extremely brief in his last governmental position where he was called upon to read the handwriting on the wall.

It was one of those inexplicable moments: The words had appeared suddenly upon the plaster of the wall opposite to where the head of state sat during his huge celebration party.

First a hand appeared, apparition-like, and then the hand wrote the words that stunned the great hall. The celebrating ceased. The leader’s face blanched. (It was almost like the inauguration balls for a U.S. president, where enormous funds are spent to reward the war lords and corporate “lords” and “ladies,” and the priests and religious leaders, who together form the power base of a Republican regime and make up the class of nobles who rule commerce and civilian behavior, and hence the nation.)

The inscription read, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” which literally meant, “numbered, numbered, weighed, divisions.”[1]

Our man, D.B. was called in to provide an intelligence analysis to the leader after his closest advisers, including the equivalent of the CIA and chief of intelligence, admitted their inability to fathom the meaning.


Then D.B. stepped up to the plate and told the head of state the following:


 Mene, signifies that God has numbered your government and finished it.


Tekel, signifies that you are weighed in the balance and you are found wanting.


Peres, [singular form, same root as upharsin],[2] signifies that your government is divided and given to another.[3]


That night the leader’s government fell. A new head of state took the oath of office and instituted a new government.


George W. Bush, his administration, the Republican controlled congress as well as the Republican Party itself, and most of the churches in America (including evangelical, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic), stand indicted—not by men—not by this writer—but by the very Holy Scriptures the religious-right and Mr. Bush profess to uphold.


Weighed against the Bible, the Bush actions are not only morally corrupt—they are unchristian and unbiblical to the core.


In this essay, the Bush agenda is weighed on the scale of God’s standards and it is found wanting.



In the Beginning



In the year 2000, George W. Bush filed an entirely specious complaint requesting an injunction against ballots being counted in Florida in the presidential election. Five Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States issued an emergency order halting all counting of ballots as Mr. Bush’s lead perilously dropped to only 154 votes. The Court issued its order, having found Mr. Bush would suffer “irreparable harm” if the counting proceeded. What was the “irreparable harm”? Mr. Bush would have lost the election if all the votes were counted. Thus five Justices effectively handed Mr. Bush the presidency of the United States.


The American churches did not rise up as one, denouncing the wickedness of the arbitrary[4] court decision. Instead, the churches either remained silent or they applauded the decision. Comments from the pulpits of America rang out with, “God intervened through the Supreme Court to take the election out of the hands of the majority to place God’s man—George W. Bush—in the White House!” It’s the first time I have heard God accused of being a conniver. (Amazingly the churches were blind to the blasphemous nature of their pronouncements.)


Yet the statement was met with “Amens” and applause, which shows either the degree of ignorance or the moral degeneracy of the congregations or both!


The situation so closely resembles an event recorded in the Bible I was stunned by what I read. The churches need to recall an ancient “election”—the first of its kind in Israel’s history, which dramatically reveals God’s dedication to the concept of free-will as expressed in the people’s choice. Had God been inclined to set aside public opinion and the preference of the people for a king, Saul would not have been “chosen by the people” to replace God’s man, Samuel.[5]


The significant thing about Samuel’s defeat is that it marked the end of a highly advanced if decentralized system of jurisprudence in Israel, where learned men sat as judges and interpreted and enunciated the laws of the nation. Samuel’s defeat marked a landmark change in Israel; it ended the rule of law, which was replaced by the spurious rule of men to the utter peril of the people.


As we shall see, the ascension of George W. Bush to the seat of power in America has brought its own challenge to the American system of jurisprudence.


Samuel’s disappointment was evident and God responded with words that are applicable to the churches today. Addressing Samuel, God said:


“They have not rejected you—they have rejected Me that I should not be King over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7 Amplified Version.)


Like the people living in Samuel’s time, this essay will reveal that the churches of America today have rejected the words of God in the Bible to follow and idolatrize sinners.


We must not forget that the people who chose Saul over Samuel paid a terrible price. It’s worth a review of the scriptures to read the warning Samuel delivered to the people. It makes one feel as if we are reliving a page in ancient history. God instructed Samuel to warn the people of exactly what would happen to them if they insisted on choosing the handsome, charming Saul[6] over God’s man. The biblical passage paraphrased says:


1)      This leader  “…will take your sons and appoint them to” various positions in his army;


2)      He will make some “commanders,” and require others to make “his instruments of war and equipment”;


3)      He will redistribute the wealth of the nation: he will confiscate your property and give it to his favorite followers; he will take your daughters to be cooks and bakers and he will take your servants for his own service; he will take a tenth of your grain and vineyards and give it to his officers; he will take a tenth of your flocks “and you shall be his slaves”;


4)      When you cry out against his doings—God will not hear you—for you chose the man for yourselves! (Derived from 1 Samuel 8:11-18 Amplified Version.)


Had we been able to recognize and extrapolate the truth from the past we might have seen that the scripture passage accurately warned us what would happen if a man with the characteristics of George W. Bush ever seized the White House.


Invade Iraq or What’s a Preemptive Strike?


Even before George W. Bush was selected president by the U.S. Supreme Court’s religious-conservatives, Mr. Bush supported an invasion of Iraq. [7] The plan was laid out in one of the key documents titled, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, which was written in 1998 and was authored by members of the neo-conservative think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Most of the men Mr. Bush chose for key administration positions were involved in the PNAC projects.[8] As I wrote in my earlier article, “Fraud Traced to the White House,” the PNAC documents clearly show that before George W. Bush took office, key officials of his future administration not only listed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as ‘adversaries’ who were characterized as rushing to ‘develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate,’ but Mr. Bush's neo-con group endorsed an alien concept. They put forth the doctrine of preemptive strikes against those nations believed to have hostile intent against the U.S. before such intent is manifested.”[9]

The founders of PNAC wrote:

“The history of the 20th Century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge and to meet threats before they become dire.”[10]

In fact, on pages 51 and 67 of the institution’s intellectual centerpiece, the PNAC authors lament that the process of transforming the military would most likely be a long one, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”[11]

In addition to the PNAC documents and Mr. Bush’s “Energy Policy,”[12] we have the eye witness account of Paul O’Neill,[13] who was Secretary of the Treasury at the time.[14] He reports a National Security Council meeting was called ten days into Bush’s term. Condoleezza Rice raised the issue of Iraq and the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction.” Mr. Bush ordered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton to begin preparing “options for the use of U.S. ground forces to bring down Saddam Hussein.[15]

Lies About the Threat of War

After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the road to war was made considerably smoother. George W. Bush still had to convince the American people and Congress that Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the United States. He had to justify a preemptive invasion.[16] So Mr. Bush told Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he didn’t;[17] Mr. Bush asserted America was in imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq when it wasn’t.[18] And Mr. Bush repeatedly linked Iraq to the World Trade Center attack when there was no connection between Iraq and the September 11th events at all.[19] Condoleezza Rice spoke of a “mushroom cloud over New York.” All these statements were false;[20] moreover, lying to Congress is a federal felony and is an impeachable offense.[21]

But the American church leaders believed Mr. Bush’s statements. And the congregations believed him. The simpleminded believed him.[22] And with the churches’ support, there were 20,753 combat sorties flown over Iraq, using 18,467 smart bombs and missiles and 9,251 dumb bombs.[23] America dropped an estimated 4,000 bombs in a 48 hour period and over 27,000 bombs by May 21, 2003. A recent survey reveals the U.S. killing efficiency. There have been an estimated 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children killed, excluding the deaths from Falluja.[24] Some sources believe Iraqi deaths may rise much higher when the deaths at Falluja are counted.[25]

Looking at the numbers, the American wrought death and destruction in Iraq is comparable to the tsunami that struck Asia in December 2004.[26] Yet did the churches mourn the loss of the innocent lives in Iraq? Did they weep? Or did they applaud?  I wrote a little about what happened:

“People on talk shows began touting the war in Iraq as “the greatest military victory in history.” A wild national fever of pride burns across the country. But what justification is there for such arrogance? Armed Iraqi soldiers were no match for the might of the American army. Pickup trucks went up against tanks. Rifles competed against heavy artillery. One U.S. Marine Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Bryan McCoy told Time magazine (April 14, 2003) reporters: ‘Let’s quit pussyfooting and call it what it is. It’s murder, it’s slaughter, it’s clubbing baby harp seals.’ McCoy’s men had just killed 92 Iraqis and taken 44 prisoners, with no injuries to the American troops. Once the peace came and protests began with Iraqis shouting, ‘Americans Go Home,’ American soldiers fired into crowds of unarmed civilians, killing many.”[27]

This was nothing of which to be proud. It makes me hang my head and ask, “Whatever happened to the church of our fathers?” If the churches do not weep for Iraqi lives, what can explain their indifference to the American casualties? The United Press International reported that American casualties are grossly underreported by the Pentagon, and now stand at over 25,000.[28]

What Does the Bible Say About Preemptive Strikes?

There are two biblical passages that deal with preemptive strikes based upon fear.[29] The first happened in Egypt prior to the Exodus. The Pharaoh observed that the children of Israel outnumbered the Egyptians and were physically stronger. Thinking shrewdly, he said “should war befall us” the Israelites might “join our enemies, fight against us, and escape out of the land.” His solution was to kill all the male infants born to the Israelites.


The second instance of a preemptive strike is often called The Massacre of the Innocents[30] in Matthew 2:1-18. After the three wise men visited King Herod, they told him the prophecy that a child was to be born in Bethlehem who would become “King of the Jews.” Herod, who became suddenly alarmed, felt threatened at the news and he ordered the death of all the children in Bethlehem from two years old and under.


Both these instances reveal the underlying warped thinking involved in the immoral preemptive murder of innocents:  “Let’s get them before they get us!” Fear is the motivator for the action. Hatred for anyone who poses even a remote future threat is the underlying psychosis of the act. The justification is always Machiavellian: the ends justify the means. The mindless Bush administration rushed into Iraq and even proclaimed the war was over before it really began. Now, according to recent reports from Iraq, the U.S. is fighting a civil war against an Iraqi army of 200,000. The U.S. is outnumbered.


The War Fairs


No sooner had Mr. Bush invaded, when trade fairs and conferences began to pop up, advertising the money to be made in ‘rebuilding’ Afghanistan and Iraq. One brochure definitely does not understate the spoils of shedding blood:


“Business opportunities continue to grow, as evidenced by recent pledges of U.S. and international aid. Billions of dollars have already been earmarked for the two countries.”[31]


Then on October 29-30, 2003, an event organized by MFM Trade Meetings of Washington D.C. was billed as the most important conference on rebuilding yet, “To date, no event has brought together all the players nor has any included involvement by the leading U.S. and international agencies involved in the rebuilding of both countries.”[32]


The conference scheduled “high-ranking U.S. government agency officials, representatives of international financial institutions, officials from Afghanistan and Iraq and other leading authorities.”[33]


The names of delegates were kept confidential to everyone but those who paid substantial amounts for the list as “sponsors.” We do know that Carl Kress, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and George P. Sigalos, Director of Government Relations for Halliburton had prominent roles in the business fair at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C.[34]  Every issue was addressed including security, financing and answers to participant’s legal questions from Pillsbury Winthrop and several other top legal firms.[35]


Some very profitable changes occurred following the preemptive strike against Iraq. Under the old Iraqi law, according to an international trade news brief by Pillsbury Winthrop, “foreign nationals (other than nationals of Arab countries) were not permitted to directly invest in” an Iraqi company or an Iraqi project. That all changed when Mr. L. Paul Bremer, the Administrator of the Iraq Provisional Authority signed Order Number 39, which not only abolished the old Iraqi law that prohibited anyone but an Arab national from owning a piece of Iraqi business, but eradicated the rule that limited the percentage of ownership by a foreign investor. Paul Bremer’s order now allows foreign investors the right to own 100% of an Iraqi entity or project.[36] Everything was made easy for those who wanted a part of the booty of the war.


How quickly the nation forgot that our “Shock and Awe” techniques of destruction not only created the opportunities to rebuild Iraq, but our occupation of the country was a necessity in order to create the legal grounds for U.S. companies to invest in Iraqi assets, including the development and processing of the second largest oil reserves in the world.[37] No wonder corporate coffers opened to Mr. Bush’s campaign drives.


What Does the Bible Say About Profiting from War?


The question that must be asked is how does a moral people respond to the acts of the Bush administration? We know that corporations have profited from the war—some of them making billions of dollars. The Center for Corporate Policy lists the top ten war profiteers.[38] Leading the way are Lockheed Martin, raking in $21.9 billion in Pentagon contracts and Halliburton, with $10.8 billion. The Center for Corporate Policy reports Halliburton’s performance on their contracts has led to multiple “criminal investigations into overcharging and kickbacks.” According to them, nine different reports reveal “government auditors have found ‘widespread, systemic problems with almost every aspect of Halliburton’s work in Iraq, from cost estimation and billing systems to cost control and subcontract management.’ Six former employees have come forward, corroborating the auditors’ concerns.”[39]


Bechtel, according to the Center for Corporate Policy, “was literally tasked with repairing much of Iraq’s infrastructure.” To get the job done, Bechtel hired “over 90 Iraqi subcontractors,” but bypassed Iraqi engineers and managers. The GAO reports that Bechtel was responsible for restoring electrical service in Iraq, but the electrical system fails to show any marked improvement over the “immediate postwar levels of May 2003” and in some areas, electrical transmission has worsened.[40]


Are there any guidelines that reveal what the Spirit says to the churches? In fact, God speaks as a father to his son, from the heart of God to his readers in this passage in Proverbs that links a preemptive attack on innocent victims with greed and the plunder of war:


“My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say,


‘Come with us, let us lie in wait to shed blood, let us ambush the innocent without cause [and show that his piety is in vain]; let us swallow them up alive as does Sheol [the place of the dead], and whole, as those who go down into the pit [of the dead]; We shall find and take all precious goods [when our victims are put out of the way], we shall fill our houses with plunder; throw in your lot among us…and be a sworn brother and comrade…’


“My son, do not walk in the way with them, restrain your foot from their path; for their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood.


“For in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird; but [when these men set a trap for others] they are lying in wait for their own blood, they set an ambush for their own lives. So are the ways of every one who is greedy of gain; such [greed for plunder] takes away the life of its possessors.” (Proverbs 1:10-19, Amplified Version.)


The prophet Isaiah describes the nation who rushed to war this way:


“Their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their paths and highways.


“The way of peace they know not, and there is no justice or right in their goings; they have made them crooked paths; whoever goes in them does not know peace.” (Isaiah 59:7-8 Amplified)


Isaiah describes the man who has led his nation away from God’s way:


“…Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, so that He will not hear.  For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness.” (Isaiah 59:2-3 Amplified)



Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo



When ancient Israel needed military intelligence, they sent spies into the land of their enemies to gather information.[41] There is not a single instance in the Bible where torture is authorized or condoned. It is always presented as something used against the righteous, and the righteous have never resorted to torturing their enemies. The word is used only once in the King James Version at Hebrews 11:35:  


“…Others were tortured to death with clubs, refusing to accept release [offered on the terms of denying their faith] that they might be resurrected to a better life. Others had to suffer the trial of mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned to death; they were lured with tempting offers [to renounce their faith]; they were sawn asunder; they were slaughtered by the sword; [while they were alive] they had to go about wrapped in the skins of sheep and goats, utterly destitute, oppressed, cruelly treated…” (Hebrews 11:35-37 Amplified Version)


Yet the United States, under the leadership of George W. Bush engaged in torture of the Iraqi people who were often just rounded up at random from the streets and imprisoned. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh stated that on February 7, 2002, Mr. Bush signed a secret official document authorizing torture.[42] The statement said:


“I…[George W. Bush] determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world.”[43]


He also stated in the document that he had:


“[T]he authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the U.S. and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise the authority at this time.”[44]


In order that his readers clearly understood, Sy Hersh pointed out that Mr. Bush was determining the detainees had “no inherent protections under the Geneva Conventions” and therefore whatever happened to the detainees, “good, bad, or otherwise,” was solely at the discretion of the President of the United States.[45]


Significantly, Alberto Gonzales, (Mr. Bush’s choice for Attorney General in the Bush second term), made a false statement to the press and to the American people during the height of the torture scandal in which he asserted:


“The President had ‘made no formal determination’ invoking the Geneva Conventions before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.’”[46]


Mr. Gonzales’ falsehood was caught when his Memorandum for the President surfaced.[47] The memorandum was dated January 25, 2002, more than a year prior to the invasion of Iraq. In it, Mr. Gonzales wrote:


“On January 18, I advised you that the Department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda.”[48]


Mr. Gonzalez continued:


“I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and, accordingly, that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW.”[49]


In an interview September 14, 2004 with Terry Gross of National Public Radio (NPR) and transcribed by the Yurica Report,[50] Hersh described an impatient Donald Rumsfeld, who wanted to take not only operational control of the war, but also wanted control of intelligence. Hersh said,


“After 9/11, Rumsfeld had just had it with the notion of going through the legal process” to go after people we believed were very important inside Al Qaeda.”


According to Hersh, Rumsfeld said in a sense, “the hell with it!”


“So Rumsfeld set up a secret unit.” The secrecy surrounding the unit was overwhelming. Hersh said the unit is called the ‘Special Access Program.’


Significantly Hersh said, “I know there was a presidential finding for it.”


In describing the unit he said,


“Everybody was under cover. They had their own aircraft. They had their own helicopters. They would hear about somebody they thought was important in the war on terrorism, somebody to interrogate. They would just get into the country, get to the guy’s house and get him out without going through any formal process. They were taking these people to Thailand, later they were taken to Egypt.”


Hersh’s statement that the President of the United States signed a document relating to the interrogation and torture of detainees is now verified by documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from the U.S. government that refer specifically to an executive order that made the methods of interrogation, which included torture, “legal.”[51]


In addition, Mr. Bush obviously required Alberto Gonzales to either directly draft legal briefs or to seek other legal opinions showing how the Geneva Convention does not apply to those labeled “terrorists,” members of al Qaeda or to “enemy combatants.”[52] The President’s prior decisions in writing (quoted above) regarding torture and the Geneva Convention appear to be an early effort to insulate the President from criminal prosecution.[53]


In still another draft that differed very little from the final document, the Wall Street Journal revealed a memorandum that claimed the president was not bound by domestic and international law banning the use of torture and claimed that the weight of a presidential order acted as a shield against possible criminal prosecution.[54] The report states:


“In order to respect the president’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign…(the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority…


“Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law…In particular, the necessity defense can justify the intentional killing of one person…so long as the harm avoided is greater.”[55]


What American administration has ever wrapped itself so tightly in the Machiavellian blanket to make torture the means justified by the desired ends? The memo actually redefined what degree of pain and suffering must be inflicted upon a victim before the acts constitute torture. Compare this to the biblical passage above and visualize Jesus making the same argument to the Sanhedrin. I promise you the comparison will revolt your sensibilities. The degree of pain inflicted:


“…must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.”[56]


At Mr. Gonzales’ confirmation hearings in January, 2005, Mr. Gonzales was invited to reject the ruling that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture. He answered: “I don’t have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached.”[57] Although the Department of Justice has rewritten and whitewashed this August 2002 memorandum as of December 30, 2004, removing the most objectionable wording (apparently to benefit Alberto Gonzalez’s appointment as their new boss), the original document remains a heinous testimony against the Bush regime.[58] Moreover, twelve retired U.S. military leaders with exceptional credentials and stature have written an open letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, requesting that Mr. Gonzales’ appointment be denied.[59] Never has an American president and his administration resorted to such extreme forms of evil and what is worse, that evil is still going on.



Do Religious Conservatives Have the Moral High Ground?



The GOP, joined by a chorus from the religious-right and the neo-conservatives who have sought to advance Mr. Bush’s power have all watched admiringly as he struts across the stage of America’s political theatre. Lassoing and exaggerating the importance of three issues highly susceptible to emotion baiting and a charged current of fear and irrationality, clever men have hijacked the churches into believing they have taken the moral high ground in America.[60]


The churches laud Mr. Bush as a “moral man” simply because he is against any legal union between gays, against any abortion and essentially (for all practical purposes) against stem cell research.


Sadly the churches and Mr. Bush have no knowledge of God. They are completely ignorant that in the Bible, the existence of ten righteous people in one of the cities would have been sufficient to spare Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction,[61] but ten righteous people are insufficient to spare the nation that refuses to defend the rights of the needy![62] And what is perhaps even more significant, God equates the lying of church leaders—the false prophets of Jeremiah’s day, their adultery, and their encouragement of evil doers to be no different than the sins of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah.[63] The problem with today’s church leaders is that they refuse to confess their own adulterous acts while condemning the most hated and reviled members of American society—like poor Matthew Shepard—heaping vile abuse and death upon others so the eyes of churchgoers are always directed away from themselves, insuring that others will always be the scapegoats.[64]


Roman Catholic Bishops, while urging and even threatening their parishioners to vote only for those candidates who oppose abortion and gay unions, [65] hid active pedophiles from discovery and refuse to subject priests to prosecution for their criminal acts. If that is not enough, the Bishops have removed the churches’ auditing program on known pedophiles.[66] One is forced to ask, which sin is the greater—or which act does the most damage—the pedophiles or the consenting adult gays? [67]


Nor do the protestant churches have any excuse; they are shepherds over flocks living in the Bible belt where the towns, counties and states have the largest number of divorces in the nation. While Jesus was silent about homosexuals, he was not silent about divorce. He called divorce a sin unless adultery was the reason for it.[68]


According to columnist Andrew Sullivan, “the states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas,” which just happen to make up so-called “red” states which overwhelmingly support George W. Bush.[69] On the other hand, the states “with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.” Sullivan points out, “Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate…is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.”[70]


Sullivan says, “A staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more.”[71] And who has the most teen births? In the state where preaching against teen sex is the strongest—teen pregnancies are the highest: Sullivan says, 16.1 percent of all births are teen births in Texas, but in liberal Massachusetts, “it’s 7.4 almost half.”[72]


How dare the churchgoers think of themselves as a moral army, preparing America for their rule! Yet they protect pastors accused of adultery and homosexuality,[73] while they condemn without mercy “humanists” and “liberals” in America who follow the teachings of Jesus and seek to protect and provide for the poor and do justice.

There's a grave discrepancy between what the Bible says and what the churches are doing: the Bible makes it clear that Christians can associate with anyone who lives in this world. And what is even more significant, a Christian may not judge non-Christians! Even if Christians are the majority, they may not make laws that deny civil liberties to people because of alleged sexual sins. St. Paul makes it clear: a Christian's area of influence in such matters is restricted to the confines of church membership where members must expel an immoral offender from their midst: slanderers, liars, deceivers, the fearful and those involved in adultery or pedophilia comes to mind. Those members may not keep their church membership (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). The churches in America, however, have it just the opposite: they point their accusatory fingers at everyone outside their churches, and they seek to deny non-members civil rights, but never even look at their own hearts and guilty souls.



Religious Conservative's Agenda for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid



Mr. Bush said in remarks at the State Department in 2001:


“It is a part of our government's desire to support the armies of compassion. We don't want government to take the good Father’s place.[74] We want the government to stand side-by-side with the good people of SOME[75]  and programs like it all around the country.” [76] (Emphasis mine.)


In both criticizing and equating government as standing in the place of God, Mr. Bush transfers social assistance programs from national interest and responsibility to private charities, which do not have the resources necessary to feed, clothe, shelter and pay for the medical costs and care for the 35.9 million Americans who live in poverty.[77] Of the 35.9 million 12.9 million children now live in poverty. Moreover, the number of people in America without health insurance grew last year to 45 million. In 2003 the average poverty line was drawn for an individual at $9,393.[78] Those who earned more were marginally okay, those who earned less were impoverished. It becomes clearer when one realizes that the median household income in America is $43,318.


In the face of the overwhelming numbers of poor and needy in America, Mr. Bush proposes to weaken and eventually eliminate the only programs that really help the sick, the elderly, and the poor. Let’s look at Mr. Bush’s record and the programs themselves.


For nearly four decades, the Medicare program in the U.S. has been extending and improving the lives of tens of millions of older Americans. Congressman Tom Allen of Maine said, “The program has been protecting seniors from impoverishment due to devastating medical costs and providing peace of mind to them and their families.”[79]


In 2003, the administration forced through a new Medicare Prescription Drug program that has had a negative impact upon America’s elderly.[80] Tom Allen said at the time, “The House and Senate Medicare bills offer the illusion of prescription drug coverage, but both are in fact riddled with inequality, complexity, uncertainty, gaps in coverage and hidden costs.”[81]


Rep. Allen said, “Even more appalling, the House bill transforms Medicare into a privatized ‘voucher’-type system in 2010, ending the guaranteed benefits Medicare has reliably provided to seniors since 1956.”[82]


It appears now that the congressman was only too right. Significantly, most religious leaders who support Mr. Bush in America quietly allowed the passage of the Medicare Drug law even though the bulk of the benefits were being transferred to corporations. A study prepared by Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar, Directors of the Health Reform Program at Boston University showed: “Sixty-one percent of Medicare’s prescription drug subsidy is going to the drug companies,” [83] while many of America’s poorest and weakest citizens were allowed to slip through what researchers have dubbed the “doughnut holes.”


Most seniors found they had little or even less financial relief from the program.[84] Yet the churches allowed it! One hates to suggest it, but perhaps the acquiescence of the churches has something to do with the fact that they have been bought off. For according to documents the White House provided to the Associated Press, the so-called “faith-based” groups, (which include churches) received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies in 2003 alone.[85] And do note this: congress didn’t pass this program—Mr. Bush rewrote the federal rules based upon his own self-appointed authority.[86]


Just as senior citizens learned that they had not gained a penny by the Bush Prescription Drug program, Mr. Bush announced the largest increase in premiums—a whopping seventeen percent increase—the largest increase in the program’s 40-year history.[87]


The next target was announced by the GOP. It intends to make drastic cuts in Medicaid (the program that provides medical attention to the poorest citizens). Medicaid is being targeted because it has become the largest government health care program. According to Lawrence O’Rourke of the Sacramento Bee, Medicaid “serves about 53 million people. It pays for nearly half of all nursing home care in the United States. It pays the health-care costs of one in four children in America and it pays more than forty percent of the cost of caring for children in hospitals.”[88]


Fears that Mr. Bush plans to shift more Medicaid costs to the states, brought the nation’s governors out to mount a bipartisan lobbying effort to stave off new federal cuts in the program.[89] But Mr. Bush has squeezed the government’s bank accounts like lemons, hoping to drain the very last drop of excess from them by granting the top one and two percent of the wealthiest Americans huge tax cuts that forced the full weight of the tax burden upon the middle class and harmed the poorest and neediest of Americans.[90]

The President's brother, Jeb Bush has introduced a plan in Florida to privatize Medicaid. "It's very radical," said Joan Alker, senior researcher for the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University. "It seems clear that the intent is really based on the notion that the H.M.O.'s and private insurers will have substantial flexibility to make a profit at the expense of the Medicaid beneficiary, who essentially assumes the risk of not getting the services they need. That's unprecedented in Medicaid, really."


The persistent attack by the Bush administration against the poor is revealed in a report written jointly by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which shows how Mr. Bush has hurt the poor and needy in every aspect of life, including health care, education, and the creation of jobs. [91]


Do not err, Mr. Bush’s programs are also an indictment against the religious leaders of America who not only condone the weakening of the entitlement programs, including Social Security, but some like Pat Robertson, have openly advocated the destruction of such programs.


It is significant that Mr. Bush is following Robertson’s sketch of how to “privatize Social Security.” [92]  Robertson laid it out and went through the motions on his 700 Club in 1985: First, according to Robertson’s lead, one begins by trying to scare everyone into thinking that Social Security is running out of money and it must be revamped in order to save it. Polished to perfection, the technique is another example of the usefulness of lies that create fear, that create a stampede, and then work to push the passage of questionable bills. But if one reads and thinks, one will know that Mr. Bush is fabricating again. [93] The truth is, Social Security is in no danger unless Mr. Bush gets his hands on it.[94]


Make no mistake there is an underlying cruelty that is manifest in Mr. Bush’s agenda. The privatizing of Social Security will be accomplished by transferring material wealth to Wall Street and to corporations. As Pat Robertson pointed out on his show in 1985, the funds now going to the elderly will be transferred into the pockets of corporations.[95] Robertson exclaimed in glee, “Imagine …$100 billion dollars a year flowing into American industry! It would be marvelous.” [96]


Under the twisted notions of the Dominionists, Medicare and Medicaid, along with Social Security are considered to be programs that rob the rich to help the poor. Religious right leaders actually label these programs as “immoral” and point to them as examples of “thievery.” Here’s a sample of a portion of an interview I quoted in The Despoiling of America with an economist, Dr. Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University who appeared on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club in 1985:


“…What the government is doing in order to help these older citizens is not charity at all. It is theft. That is, the government is using power to confiscate property that belongs to one American and give, or confiscate their money, and provide services for another set of Americans to whom it does not belong. That is the moral question that Christians should face with not only Medicare, Medicaid. But many other programs as well….”[97]


If one thinks that no one else would make such statements today, read the comments of David Holcberg, research associate at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California:


“…The wealthiest people on earth are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it.”[98]


We have lived in a time in the last twenty-five years when so-called “Christian” book publishers and “Christian” bookstores distribute books written by people who have devoted their time and resources to dispelling the truths of the Bible.


One book, Idols for Destruction by Herbert Schlossberg, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983) quotes Irving Kristol, the founder of the neo-conservative movement, and then goes on to attack the very idea of the existence of poverty in America, calling it a “lie.” Schlossberg asserted “that the poor receive medical attention equal or superior to other groups” by claiming for proof that families earning less than $5,000 annually, “accounted for 1,141 days of hospital care per thousand persons in the 1980’s while those earning more than $25,000 annually received only 679 days of hospital care.”[99]


After a man has said that, why need anyone tend to anything else he has to say?  The number of days spent in a hospital is no indicator of the quality of care the poor receive—but it is a pointer to the fact the poor are sicker more often than those who can afford to go for checkups at their physician’s offices and receive preventive care help. (Sadly, most physicians in my town now refuse to accept Medicare patients.)


Too many Americans have been reduced to abject poverty. Too many are homeless—living with their children on the streets of American cities, shivering in the cold. In a time when Mr. Bush has lost more jobs than any other president since Herbert Hoover, attitudes have hardened against the poor and needy. There have been reports and interviews on Air America Radio that reveal even returning Iraq vets cannot find work—their old jobs have been given to others and accounts are surfacing that returning Iraq war veterans are living on the streets. Where is the GI Bill from this president who relies entirely on the charitable “works” of the churches who give out free meals, but have no funds to provide income sufficient for housing and clothing and medical help?


Following the tsunami on December 26, 2004, President Bush first pledged only $15 million to help the victims. Then when the U.N. began to complain, Mr. Bush upped America’s contribution to $35 million. It took an uproar among Americans and newspaper editorials like the New York Times for Mr. Bush to express his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Indonesia and to speak publicly about the devastation, [100] and to finally pledge $350 million.[101]


Nicholas Kristof asked in his New York Times column, “Is the U.S. stingy about helping poor countries?” The answer is—we are extremely stingy. “The bottom line is that this month and every month, more people will die of malaria (165,000 or more) and AIDS (240,000) than died in the tsunamis, and almost as many will die because of diarrhea (140,000).” Kristof points out that Americans gave 15 cents per day per person in official development assistance to poor countries. Compare that to Denmark which gave 84 cents, the Netherlands which gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents and France gave 41 cents.[102]



What Does the Bible Say About How a Nation Must Treat the Poor and the Sick?



But does the Bible say anything about Professor William’s accusation that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are actually immoral programs because they rob from the rich to give to the poor who haven’t earned it?


To the contrary, in fact the Bible requires a portion of the wealth of all the people of a nation to be set aside and transferred to the poor and needy! Clearly Mr. Bush and the Republicans in Congress are trying to destroy what God has established.


Deuteronomy 26:12-13 establishes a holy tax (called a tithe) for the nation of ancient Israel, which transfers wealth to a group of people who did not earn it. In this scripture the payments were made every third year to the Levites, who were our equivalent of civil servants and to “the stranger and the sojourner, the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your towns and be filled.” (Amplified.)


Similarly Deuteronomy 24: 19-22 (Amplified) creates both a form of taxation as well as a transfer of the wealth on an annual basis to the poor: the stranger and sojourner, the fatherless and the widow. The scripture requires that a portion of three different crops be left for the poor and needy: the harvest from the fields, oil from the olive trees, and the grapes from the vineyard.


Moreover, in the Bible, refusal to defend the rights of the needy and the widows and orphans (and here I’m thinking of the widows and orphans of the September 11, 2001 tragedy) is a very big deal.[103] For it was sufficient cause for God to allow that nation to be destroyed and its people carried away into slavery. The book of Jeremiah speaks to the issue and God begins to sound more and more like a good liberal Democrat:


“For among my people are found wicked men; they watch as fowlers do who lie in wait; they set a trap, they catch men.


“As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit and treachery; therefore they have become great and grown rich,


“They have grown fat and sleek. Yes, they surpass in deeds of wickedness. They do not judge and plead with justice the cause of the fatherless that it may prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. (Emphasis mine.)


“Shall I not punish them for these things? Says the Lord. Shall not I avenge myself on such a nation as this?” (Jeremiah 5: 26-29 Amplified Version.)


Jeremiah goes on in the 2nd Chapter:


“Also on your skirts is found the lifeblood of the persons of the innocent poor. You did not find them house-breaking, nor have I found it out by secret search, but it is because of [your lust for idolatry that you have done] all these things…Behold, I will bring you to judgment and will plead against you, because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’” (Jeremiah. 2: 34-35. Amplified Version.)


Jeremiah tells the nation what God’s terms are if they are to be spared from destruction and from being carried away as captives:


“If you thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, if you thoroughly and truly execute justice between every man and his neighbor,


“If you do not oppress the transient and the alien, the fatherless and the widow, or shed innocent blood [by oppression and by judicial murders]…


“Then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers…” (Jeremiah 7:5-7. Amplified Version.)


Amos the prophet addresses a nation who continues to mistreat the poor:


“Hear this, O you who would swallow up and trample down the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail and come to an end, Saying,


‘When will the new moon festival be past, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, making the ephah measure small, and the shekel measure great, and falsifying the scales by deceit, that we may buy [into slavery] the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals; yes, and sell the refuse of the wheat [as if it were good grade]?’


“The Lord has sworn by [Himself Who is] the glory and pride of Jacob, ‘Surely I will never forget any of their …deeds.’” (Amos 8:4-7. Amplified.)


Amos makes it clear that if a nation places burdens upon the poor, allows the powerful to take advantage of them and denies the poor not only their day in court but true justice and equity, that nation will not partake of its own bounty. Amos 5:11-12. Other verses in Proverbs extend God’s blessings to those who help the poor:


“He who has pity on the poor lends to the Lord, and that which he has given He will repay to him.” (Proverbs 19:17. Amplified.)


“He who gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes [from their want] will have many a curse.” (Proverbs 28:27. Amplified.)


Here is what God says about medical assistance through the prophet Ezekiel as God addressed the spiritual “shepherds”:


“The diseased and weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the hurt and crippled you have not bandaged, those gone astray you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought to find; but with force and hardhearted harshness you have ruled them.” (Ezekiel 34:4 Amplified)


And because the churches and the false spiritual leaders failed in their responsibility to the sick and infirm of the nation, Ezekiel quotes God:


“I am against the [spiritual] shepherds; and I will require My sheep at their hand, and cause them to cease feeding the sheep…I will rescue My sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.” (Ezekiel 34:9-10 Amplified)


Another poignant scripture that reveals Jesus’ own attitude toward the nations and people who have ignored the plight of the poor, sick and needy is from the book of Matthew. Notice that the separation of the people is done on a national basis. This must be read as an indictment of national political actions as well as personal actions. The individuals who supported false leaders and their agenda toward the poor and needy are clearly going to be held responsible for their votes:


“All nations shall be gathered before him, and he will separate the people…And he will cause the sheep to stand at his right hand, but the goats at his left….Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Be gone from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!’


‘For I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink; I was a stranger and you did not welcome me…I was naked and you did not clothe me; I was sick and in prison and you did not visit me with help and ministering care.’


“Then they also [in their turn] will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’


“And he will reply to them, ‘Solemnly I declare to you, in so far as you failed to do it for the least of these [in the estimation of men] you failed to do it for me.” (Matthew 25:31-45. Amplified Version.)


Though evil men may try to obliterate the words and impact of the Scriptures, they will never succeed. Their immorality and sins must be overwhelmingly rejected by all Americans, lest this nation fall under the condemnation of God—if it is not under condemnation already for the deeds of Mr. Bush.



Religious Conservative's Immigration Plans



In January of 2004, George Bush introduced his Temporary Worker Program.[104] He listed four points:


“First, America must control its borders…”


“Second, new immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country. If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job.


“Third, we should not give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully, or hope to do so.


“Fourth, new laws should provide incentives for temporary, foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired.”[105]  (Emphasis mine.)


However, the key give-a-way in Mr. Bush’s speech was that he identified the program with the words underlined above, “incentives for temporary, foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries.” In other words after an immigrant worker fulfills his sign-up periord of three years, he can either re-enlist or he will be forced to leave the U.S.


It appears Mr. Bush is resurrecting nothing less than a return to the temporary worker program that prevailed during World War II. It was called the “Bracero program,” which allowed Mexican workers to come to the United States legally for a specific period of time. This brought in cheap farm labor, but the workers suffered under cruel and harsh conditions, frequently not receiving any pay and when their term was up, they were forced to leave the United States.


The first Bracero program favored the rich land owners over the poor and needy aliens, who literally became indentured servants to employers who treated them as if they were property or prisoners. Mr. Bush is unlikely to insert regulations into his legislation that will protect the health, life, and working conditions under which the poor sojourners will labor. We are about to see that his program violates the explicit edicts of Scriptures and will bring upon the U.S. the wrath of God.


In addition to the Hispanics another group of sojourners have become objects of prejudice, scorn and hate from Mr. Bush, his Republicans and the churches.


Almost half of America has waged a war of hatred directed at immigrant and native Muslims living within America’s borders.[106] A poll taken recently (December 2004) found highly religious people believe that American Muslims should be treated differently than the rest of the people living within the U.S. The poll found nearly half (47%) of Americans want to curtail the legal and civil rights of Muslims in America and 42% of Christians with a high level of religiosity believe “that Muslim Americans should register their whereabouts with the federal government” and 65% of the highly religious “believe that Islam is more likely to encourage violence compared to other religions.”[107]


If, as is apparent from the poll, so-called Christians are exhibiting unwarranted prejudices against Muslims, it is even a further grief to realize how the Church in America has transgressed express biblical sanctions regarding immigrants and temporary residents living within the borders of this nation. And here I need to make it clear that the biblical edicts extend to Hispanics and to every color, race, accent, religion and country of origin.


One of the most fundamental biblical principles in the Bible deals with how believers must treat outsiders in their land.


Let those who can hear what the Spirit saith to the churches weep in repentance:


“For the Lord your God…loves the stranger or temporary resident and gives him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger and sojourner…” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19. Amplified.)


God actually instructs us by making reference to the forerunner of our tax system that funds are to be used to feed and clothe the aliens among us as well as the poor, the orphans and the widows:


“…and the stranger or temporary resident, and the fatherless, and the widow, who are in your towns, shall come and eat and be satisfied; that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.” (Deuteronomy 14:29. Amplified.)


“And if a stranger dwells temporarily with you in your land, you shall not suppress and mistreat him.


“But the stranger who dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you; and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19: 33-34. Amplified Version.)


“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21. Amplified.)


In fact, as we’ve seen, the scriptures establish that a nation can only escape destruction if it follows God’s rules, one of which is that it does not “oppress the transient and the alien…” (Jeremiah 7: 5-7. Amplified)


The prophet Jeremiah exhorted:


“Thus says the Lord: And do no wrong; do no violence to the stranger or temporary resident, the fatherless or the widow, nor shed innocent blood…” (Jeremiah 22:3 Amplified.)


God warns that the voices and cries of those innocents killed, robbed, oppressed, ridiculed and ignored will rise to the throne of heaven—and woe be the nation who caused it.



Deregulate Health and Safety and Environmental Laws



Regulation of commerce is one of the issues addressed by Martin Luther’s “Sermon on Trade and Usury,” delivered in 1520.[108] Luther stated unequivocally that business cannot be conducted without government regulation! Luther argues a benevolent government is necessary to prevent tricks, defrauding, monopoly, market manipulation and other manifestations of greed and cupidity. His position was entirely biblical. We are about to see how George W. Bush trampled upon the biblical ethics.


From the moment George W. Bush took over the reins of the presidency, he began to de-regulate every health and safety measure he had the power to destroy. Here are a few of the swings of his axe on the road to breaking apart every protective regulation in sight, beginning on his first day in office. (The list was compiled by Craig Aaron, Senior Editor In These Times and his complete list is available.)[109]



“January 20, 2001: Chief of Staff Andrew Card issued a sixty-day moratorium halting all new health, safety, and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton administration.


“March 7, 2001: Bush urged congress to repeal ergonomic regulations designed to protect workers from repetitive-stress injuries.


“March 14, 2001: Bush abandoned his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.


“March 20, 2001: Bush administration moved to overturn a Clinton regulation reducing the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water.


“March 28, 2001: Bush backed out of the Kyoto treaty on global warming.


“April 4, 2001: United States Department of Agriculture proposed lifting a requirement that all beef used in federal school lunch programs must be tested for salmonella; the proposal was dropped two days later.


“On April 29, 2001 George W. Bush met with California governor Gray Davis but refused to impose federal price controls to curtail California’s energy crisis.


“May 11, 2001: Bush administration abandoned international effort to crack down on offshore tax havens.


“July 9, 2001: Bush administration opposed UN treaty to curb international trafficking in small arms and light weapons.


“July 26, 2001: Bush administration rejected international treaty on germ warfare and biological weapons.”


Here from the Yurica Report collection are two of the latest swings of the Bush axe that have cost even more lives:

August 15, 2004: Bush guts tuberculosis regulations. Tuberculosis was reappearing with alarming frequency across the United States. The government began writing rules to protect five million people whose jobs put them in special danger. Bush canceled the rules that would save lives.[110] 

September 19, 2004: GOP deregulates every type of gun in D.C. making it a wide open city. The nation's capital city will soon suffer a brazen insult at the hands of the House of Representatives as a legislative majority prepares to vote for the decontrol of guns in the city - that's right, a majority of lawmakers, sworn to "insure domestic tranquility" for the nation, would make D.C. stand for Dodge City.

As is apparent, George W. Bush favors “deregulation” of the market place. What a sanitized word! And he favors the dismantling of “environmental controls”—which is just another way of saying, “deregulation.” But those sanitized words have cost Americans a heavy price. Those who feel nothing at the deaths of the innocent Iraqi civilians and the people slaughtered by the 2004 tsunami ought to calculate the cost Americans are paying for their president’s policies.


Scientists estimate that over 100,000 Americans will die prematurely because Mr. Bush has deregulated environmental controls.[111] The average number of life-years lost by individuals dying prematurely from exposure to the particulate matter Mr. Bush is allowing Americans to breathe—is fourteen years.[112] The estimated amount that Mr. Bush’s Clear Skies-related health problems will cost taxpayers, per year: $115 billion.[113] The extra money earned by the polluting corporations has made its way into the pockets of Republican candidates. During the 2000 election: it was $8 million.[114]


Senator James Jeffords of Vermont said, “I expect the Bush administration will go down in history as the greatest disaster for public health and the environment in the history of the United States.”[115]


Let no one think that the Bible has nothing to say about pollution and premature death due to it in the twenty-first century. Polluting is one of man’s worst sins. And one ignores the biblical injunctions against it at his own peril. The following is quoted from, Who Really Wrote the Bible? an unpublished book by Katherine Yurica:


“The Health and Safety Code of Leviticus was the forerunner of all modern sanitation laws, and its implementation in 1847 in Vienna hospital obstetrical wards by Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, cut the death rate by one-half. One out of every six women died in the maternity wards prior to the application of the Levitical laws which are now standard procedure in all hospitals.[116] In the fourteenth century the Black Death took the lives of one out of every four persons in Europe. Yet historians tell us that it was the implementation of the laws of Leviticus: segregation and quarantine of the victims of infectious diseases that destroyed the lethal plagues of the Dark Ages.”[117]


Sanitation is still the basic issue today. Just as our hospitals and our homes must be sanitary, our air and our water must be free of filth that spreads diseases. Bill Moyers in one of the most powerfully written essays I have read recently, and which I encourage my readers to read in its entirety, wrote the following:


“…the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This administration wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural resources. They want to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections; and ease pollution standards for cars, sports utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.


“They want a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.


“They want to drop all of the government’s new-source review suits against polluting coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.


“….the Environmental Protection Agency planned…to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes, pesticides that have been linked to neurological damage in children. Instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children’s clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.”[118]


It is very important to realize that the God of the Bible is concerned with the well being of the entire world: there are environmental laws in the Bible that affect the health and well being of mankind. There are laws concerned with ecology and conservation,[119] protecting wild life,[120] and legislation ordering care for animals,[121] and rest for the land.[122]


Believers may not allow others to die or participate in poisoning the atmosphere and in destroying the earth without falling under the judgment of God. There is no authorization in the Bible whatsoever for believers to junk the biblical standards because of their fallacious reasoning, “We’re living in the last days.” What pitiful ignorance of the laws of God and lack of knowledge of the Word! The scriptures declare that we have been living in the “last days” since Luke quoted Peter on the day of Pentecost nearly 2000 years ago:


“This is…what was spoken through the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days said God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh…’” (Acts 2: 16-17 Amplified) (Emphasis mine.)[123]


It is unbelievable that the churches who claim to know the Holy Scriptures would endorse a man with Mr. Bush’s agenda. It is unbelievable that a man who leads a nation would deliberately become an advocate for the spread of filth in the air and water and dare call himself a “Christian,” while the churches of America tape their mouths shut from condemning what God has already judged as evil.


As we look over the list of the regulations Mr. Bush has decimated, it is clear his intent is to create an environment in which the greedy prosper at the expense of the people—even if it means the people will die or be injured by his actions. For where regulation is absent, wholesale thievery, injury and death are present.



What Does the Bible Say About Rigging Devices?



As we are about to see, the God of the Bible gets involved and concerns himself with fairness in the marketplace of a nation. One of the most significant areas of regulation established by the Bible is the regulation of all devices that measure, weigh and count. 


But from 2002 through 2004, Republicans in Congress refused to investigate allegations that voting machines were rigged in the 2002 mid-term elections by the unscrupulous. In fact, Republicans continue to fight any investigation and to fight attempts of other parties to recount the votes in the 2004 elections. So pervasive is the Republican indifference to voting fraud—that the New York Times editors call the party’s indifference “depressing.”[124]


The failure of new voting machines to accurately count the votes has been well documented.[125] The problems inaccurate vote counting devices create are similar to the effects of deregulation. Simply put, in either case, the public ceases to be protected by its government. So it is not surprising that the Republican Party as a whole refuses to create laws that will protect the public from unscrupulous operators: creating laws that regulate commerce are diametrically opposed to their agenda.


Bills have been introduced in Congress by Democrats to investigate and stop the states from using defectively programmed voting machines or machines that lend themselves to manipulation. A bill was introduced by Democrats that requires each voting machine to print out a voting receipt, listing the voter's choices. These bills have been refused or ignored by the Republicans, the Christian Right and the churches of America. The so-called “Christian” Republicans in congress have either opposed the bills or remained silent. The Democrats cannot even get their bills to the floor for a vote. The churches continue to remain silent over the issue. Yet there is a strong biblical prohibition against allowing deceptive measuring devices. The biblical injunctions are so forceful there can be no doubt that God requires the regulation of commerce! The biblical injunctions begin in Leviticus:


“You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have accurate and just balances, just weights…and measures.” (Leviticus 19:35-36. Amplified Version) (Emphasis mine.)


In another passage in Proverbs the scripture declares God’s intense feelings about false measuring devices:


“A false balance is an abomination to the Lord.” (Proverbs 11:1, King James Version)


In still another passage we find a more comprehensive prohibition:


“Diverse weights [one for buying and another for selling] and diverse measures, both of them are exceedingly offensive and abhorrent to the Lord.” (Proverbs 20:10, Amplified Version)


This corresponds to a passage in Deuteronomy that prohibits rigging for some transactions and true results for others:


“You shall not have in your bag true and false weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house true and false measures, a large and a small. But you shall have a perfect and just weight, and a perfect and just measure…” (Deut. 25:13-15 Amplified Version)


Similarly, in the book of Jeremiah, the prophet demonstrates why regulation of the instruments of commerce is necessary. The prophet exposes the extent an entire nation “from the prophet even to the priest every one deals falsely.” Jeremiah 6:13 (Amplified Version) The same verse describes the people: “For from the least of them even to the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness—to greed for unjust gain.”


The prophet Micah also cries out against unregulated market places and warns of punishment to the nation that so imbibes:


“Are there not still treasures gained by wickedness in the house of the wicked, and [a false measure for grain] a scant measure that is abominable and accursed?


“Can I be pure myself [and acquit the man] with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights?


“For the city’s rich men are full of violence, and her inhabitants have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.


“Therefore I have also smitten you with a deadly wound and made you sick, laying you desolate, waste and deserted because of your sins.” (Micah 6:10-13. Amplified Version)


Deregulation means removing the legal controls that protect the public. After reading these verses, there can be no doubt that the Bible prohibits vote rigging in all its forms![126]


We need a new Joseph N. Welch to rise among us and face the McCarthyites of this age and cry, “Have the churches no shame? Have Republicans no shame? Mr. President, have you no shame? Have you no honor? For what man of honor would brag that he has a mandate to act on his agenda when any mandate that he has may have come entirely from false and rigged machines?”[127]



Mr. Bush’s “Justice” Versus the Bible’s Justice



The biblical system of jurisprudence is built upon the principle that we are ruled by laws and not by men. But for the first time in the history of the United States, we are facing an opposing ideology that seeks dominance over us: the Republican Party and its scorners teach: we are to be ruled by men and not by laws! This is heresy.


We have already seen in this essay how Mr. Bush, Mr. Gonzales and the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Mr. Gonzales’ direction, reinterpreted the laws on torture and wrote legal memos that empower the president to order torture in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions which also immunize the torturers from punishment. This is a clear example of evil—mere men placed themselves above the law. We are about to see why Mr. Bush’s attitude is repugnant to the God of the Bible.


In the books Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the very foundations of Western civilization were laid. Here are the codes of law that form the backbone of the judicial system of our world. Here the adversary system of justice was established over three millenniums ago, complete with the cross-examination of witnesses.[128]


Here in the Bible were the beginnings of our rules of evidence: proofs of fact had to be produced before the judges in the form of concrete evidence, mere conjecture was unacceptable.[129] Here was the beginning of forensic medicine: the examination of the remains of an animal was required in order to determine whether it was mauled to death by a wild beast.[130] Here evidence had to be conclusive. And here there was a presumption of innocence: for the law required two or three witnesses to establish a charge against an individual.[131] The word of one witness was insufficient proof of the existence of a wrong doing. Here the burden of proof was on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue.[132] And here too was the forerunner of the subpoena of witnesses.[133]


When we leave the sacred pages and examine the path of George W. Bush, we find that he might be completely ignorant of the biblical standards of justice, but even if he is fully informed of what the Bible says, he has a peculiar interest in overriding the Bible’s rules on justice. The reason is this: Mr. Bush wants to appoint base judges who have already made up their minds on cases before they hear them. This is a perversion of justice. Mr. Bush, however, is an advocate of the false way: he wants man to rule and not law. He represents Saul not Samuel!


As another example of his ideology, he seeks to appoint judges who will view the world through his eyes—he sees big business and big corporations as his “base.”[134] He pushes the rights of corporations over individuals.[135] He prefers not to punish corporation executives who have donated huge sums to Republican coffers even though their companies were awarded contracts without competitive bidding, or were involved in rigging prices or mismanagement in Iraq or defrauding Californians in an energy crisis.[136] He is against regulating the market place. So he wants the courts to adhere to his philosophy. In other words, he wants to interject partiality into the judging process. He’s been granted millions of dollars from corporations for his campaigns—it is a form of bribery, prohibited by the Bible and he wants judges who will respect the system of “contributions,” that are the equivalent to “bribes.”


Another example of his desire to interject partiality into the process of judging is the fact that he consistently names right-wing ideologues. Is that not evidence he wants to please the religious right who are devoted to him? It is only natural for him to want to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that essentially legalized abortions that were of the type hitherto criminalized. In fact, he admitted as much during the debates with John Kerry, when he made reference to the Dred Scott decision, which scores of writers have described to be code for Roe v. Wade.[137] Peggy Noonan reveals how the interchangeability of the two decisions works in her column in January, 2003:


“I think, as many do, that Roe v. Wade was as big a travesty as the Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott, which in 1857 declared that descendants of slaves could not become U.S. citizens. All Americans would now see that decision as terribly wrong, but back then the Court had spoken and Dred Scott was forced to continue to live in slavery.”[138]


If a nominee admits to his Senate questioners that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has admitted that he is prejudiced and partial in advance—therefore he is not qualified to serve as a judge. So he must be willing to lie. This is, of course, a most unrighteous quality for a judge and a sure track toward the perversion of justice itself.


This means Mr. Bush seeks to appoint base judges who are willing to lie about their own convictions, or who will put on an indignant show against any attempt to uncover his or her true judicial prejudices, hoping their performance will force the questioning Senators to back off. Thus Mr. Bush makes a circus out of his judicial nominees. And his nominees have demonstrated not only an ideological bent to the extreme religious right and toward Dominionism,[139] but they have lacked the impartiality and search for truth that a righteous judge must nurture and reach for every day of his or her life on the bench. In short, Mr. Bush’s nominees lack judicial humility. Moreover, Mr. Bush’s nominees are evidence enough that he wants judges that reflect his philosophy—not God’s. As we shall see, he has set out to appoint judges who will pervert justice.



The Development of the Biblical Justice System



Just as we saw that the God of the Bible has taken a special interest in public health and safety laws, inspiring the code against pollution, the Bible has a very special interest in justice. The Bible contains the rules of evidence and the code of behavior for judges.


The system of jurisprudence in ancient Israel began as follows:


“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.


“You shall not misinterpret or misapply judgment; you shall not be partial, or take a bribe; for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous.” (Deuteronomy 16:18-19. Amplified.)


“Keep far from a false matter; and [be very careful] not to condemn to death the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify and acquit the wicked.” (Exodus 23:7. Amplified)


Today, justices of the Supreme Court take an oath based essentially on the following biblical edict:


“You shall do no injustice in judging a case; you shall not be partial to the poor or show a preference for the mighty, but in righteousness and according to the merits of the case judge your neighbors.” (Leviticus 19:15. Amplified Version)


According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:


“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE OF POSITION] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”


Note that under this oath a judge cannot be “pro” big business or “anti” the small guy. This prohibition is one that Mr. Bush and Republicans in congress brush aside, often scornfully. Although the oath seems weak, a study of a judge’s decisions ought to reveal whether or not such a bias exists and its presence must disqualify that judge from his office. (This is why Mr. Bush is most apt to nominate candidates without a judicial record because they haven’t served as judges in the past.)


Once a case is under way, the salient focus of the scriptures is that justice must not be perverted. The biblical sanctions cover the acts of witnesses too. A witness must not follow a crowd or join with a multitude to undermine the search for truth.[140]


The prophet Jeremiah returns to the overwhelming theme of biblical justice:


“Execute justice and righteousness, and deliver out of the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed.” (Jeremiah 22:3. Amplified)


The last question to address is this: “What happens if justice is perverted?” The answer is found in Deuteronomy:


“Cursed be he who perverts the justice due to the sojourner or the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. All the people shall say, Amen.” (Deuteronomy 27:19. Amplified.)



Be Careful Not to Commit Judicial Murders: The Texas Clemency Memos



In the United States there have been 877 executions since 1976. In 2003 there were 57. Each year, approximately 4.5 people are convicted of capital crimes who are actually innocent and over 100 people have been released since 1972 as a result of being wrongly convicted.[141] Just months before George W. Bush became Governor of Texas, the state executed Robert Nelson Drew. The state refused to give him a new hearing—even after another man signed an affidavit confessing to the murder. Drew was executed on August 2, 1994.[142]


Mr. Bush and Alberto Gonzales should have taped the quoted biblical verses on justice to their desks in Washington and in Texas. The verse, “and [be very careful] not to condemn to death the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify and acquit the wicked,”[143] has particular poignancy because of the number of people Mr. Bush executed as governor with Mr. Gonzales’ assistance.

Alberto Gonzales was responsible for drafting the memorandum that should have reflected a thorough review of each death penalty case that came before the then Governor Bush. The governor of each state is often the last hope of catching an injustice before an innocent man is executed. Governors have the power to issue clemency if they find a miscarriage of justice. But for the system to work, the governor’s office must give each case a thorough review. However, the memos from Mr. Gonzales to Mr. Bush in Texas reveal there was a shocking lack of interest in the reviewing procedure for the 152 death sentence cases the state executed during Mr. Bush’s term.

John Dean, the former White House Counsel to Richard Nixon wrote, “The Gonzales execution memos raise serious—and, unfortunately ugly—questions, not because of what they say, rather because of what they fail to say. They also suggest that President Bush's earlier claims about how he, in fact, handled clemency requests as Governor of Texas are less than accurate.” [144]

Dean quoted investigative reporter John Berlow’s assessment of the memos: “No consideration of crucial issues.”

Berlow, himself, pointed out that during Bush's six years as governor, 150 men and two women were executed in Texas. Berlow reports in the Atlantic Monthly, that the 152 deaths are “a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history.” [145]

Most knowledgeable commentators regard the “Texas Clemency Memos” as evidence of a careless disregard of Mr. Bush’s responsibilities to make sure no injustice had occurred. The memos can be viewed via links in the footnote section.[146] I am inclined to think that the memos and attitudes displayed by both men are indicative of a deep seated disrespect for the search for truth and justice. Mr. Bush’s mimicry of Karla Faye Tucker’s plea[147] opens a view to the calloused indifference of the man’s soul and is a violation of Exodus 23:7.[148]


The Amplified Bible introduces a new term that is fitting to end this section: the shedding of “innocent blood [by oppression and by judicial murders].” Jeremiah 7:6.



Is Mr. Bush’s Tort Reform Biblical?



Does it seem peculiar that a man who would not lift a finger to make sure that the poor and wretched souls on Death Row really deserved the death penalty, would now be campaigning so that corporations can avoid paying their full and just compensation for the injuries suffered by their victims? 


George Bush and Dick Cheney have an agenda they call, “Tort Reform.” Shockingly, their reform is based upon one idea—to minimize the amount of money the rich and powerful corporations must pay to their victims after having been found guilty of injuring them.


Bush said in a speech in Madison County, Illinois, while kicking off his national campaign to change our nation’s civil justice system—that he wants to put a cap of $250,000 on the amount of damages an injured person can receive for “physical and emotional pain and suffering.”[149] He said, “I intend to make this a priority issue, as I stand before Congress, when I give the State of the Union.” [150]


Mr. Bush was standing in front of a banner that promised “affordable health care,” on a stage filled with dozens of doctors in white coats when he kicked off his campaign.[151] He told his audience that he now has a “mandate” because “voters made their position clear on Election Day.”[152]


But the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights describes Mr. Bush’s changes to the country’s civil justice system differently. They write:


“For over twenty years, powerful forces of greed in our economy -- principally insurance companies, the manufacturing sector, the medical industry and Wall Street -- have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda, phony studies…to convince you that there are too many lawyers and too many lawsuits.

“What are these giant corporations trying to accomplish?

“Lobbyists and PR consultants for these corporations are pushing legislation to restrict your legal right to hold them accountable in a court of law. The ‘defendants' lobby’ wants to eliminate the right of citizens to hire a lawyer, go to court and punish companies that steal, maim and kill with the only kind of lesson big business understands: a substantial financial whack at the bottom line, in the form of a damage award.

“They call their strategy ‘tort reform.’ A ‘tort’ is a legal term for ‘a wrong.’ The ‘tort law’ is composed of state statutes and court decisions that give you the right to sue someone who causes harm to you, whether it's a drunk driver, a corporation that manufactures a defective product, a credit card company that overcharges you, or a government bureaucrat that breaks the law.”[153]



Mr. Bush is fond of repeating that doctors are “being driven out of their profession” because of outrageous amounts being paid to plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits. The facts contradict him.[154] He says he’s only trying to help the doctors, but in fact, he is working to take away the right of injured victims to receive fair and just compensation for their injuries.


One woman said her doctors somehow switched her test results and mistakenly told her she had breast cancer before amputating both her breasts.[155] Mr. Bush wants her to receive a maximum of only $250,000 for the injury and damage done to her.


While claiming that doctors are being inundated with “frivolous suits,” Mr. Bush feigns interest in Americans receiving the best of medical attention. In fact he wants to duplicate a 1975 California law that prevents victims of negligent doctors from receiving full compensation for their injuries. In the end, he wants to shield bad doctors from justice in all the other states.


“At the end of the day, legal reform is a way to take money from people’s pockets,” said Doug Heller, director of the California-based Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights.[156]


“This discussion is really all about what people are responsible for when they harm others and what kind of compensation people have access to when they are harmed,” Heller said.[157]


Unfortunately Mr. Bush’s damage award of a maximum of $250,000—regardless of the extent of injuries and regardless of whether or not the victim will suffer pain for the rest of his or her life—is so small an amount in comparison to the wealth of the corporate holdings of those who most often injure people, that his reform will have a very natural side effect: it will actually encourage corporations and medical facilities to become careless. After all, if there is little or no deterrent for injuring someone, why take the time and the tedious caution to prevent injury? “Time is money” as we have been told by high powered people.


Thus Mr. Bush’s so-called reform marks the end of the victim’s ability to receive just compensation for his or her injuries. Mr. Bush also wants to put additional limitations on filing lawsuits: he wants to establish new rules for class action lawsuits and asbestos cases,[158] making it more difficult for the victims to prosecute their cases.


Not only does Mr. Bush’s position violate biblical laws, but it is reprehensible to God: the balance of power in a courtroom cannot and may not be switched to the defendant’s side by edict of the president and his slavish Republican “Christians” that sit in the House and Senate! 


In fact, Mr. Bush and his congressional leaders are attempting to undo what God established: the Bible states unequivocally:


“You shall not deprive the poor man of justice in his suit.” (Exodus 23:6. New English Version)


The Amplified version states it this way:


“You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his cause.”



The Bible’s Criminal and Civil Code System



In order to grasp the magnitude of Mr. Bush’s transgressions, we need to look at the beginning of criminal and civil law as it appeared in the Bible: There are essentially six steps in the development of the biblical law that reflect the basis of our criminal and civil justice system:


1)      Criminal law was examined and defined by the Bible;

2)      Civil torts were introduced with pecuniary damages available.

3)      Civil law was extended to cover acts committed by employees and by an owner’s animal.

4)      Civil torts based on the negligence of the defendant were introduced.

5)      Punitive damages were awarded.

6)      The ascendancy of the Civil Justice system.


First, Criminal Law: In cases where one person intentionally inflicted physical injury or death to another, the biblical law was “you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound.”[159]


Second, Civil Torts: There was an obvious problem with the “eye for an eye” law as it was stated. It did not deal with an injury inflicted by a man upon a woman where the man lacked a corresponding bodily part. For example, if a man was swinging his sword around and cut a woman’s breast off—he had no comparable part on his body that could be severed to fulfill the eye for an eye law. What to do? It appears the Bible took the first step toward pecuniary compensation. Exodus describes a new case: Two men were fighting and one of them injured a pregnant woman in the scuffle, causing a miscarriage. The law said the defendant was required to pay whatever amount was demanded by the woman’s husband after assessment by the judges.[160] (Do note that the Bible does not equate the loss of the fetus to be a death of a person.[161] For if the fetus had been considered a person, the defendant, who caused the miscarriage, would have been put to death or suffered another punishment if his act was unintentional.[162] More on this below.)


Third, Civil Torts Committed by Employees or by an owner’s animal: In the development of tort law in the Bible, the next issues involved torts committed by employees and torts committed by the owner’s animal. Let’s look at the animal problem: if an ox gored a man or a woman to death, the Bible says, “the ox shall be stoned, but the owner of the ox shall be free.” [163]


Fourth, Civil Torts Based on Negligence: the Bible takes a new turn here and introduces the concept of negligence into the law, which really expands tort law. The Bible examines the animal tort again, but this time with a twist: If the ox in the third example above has gored others before, and his owner has been warned, but fails to keep the animal closed in, and then it kills a man or a woman, the Bible says the ox “shall be stoned to death.” But this time biblical law demanded that the man who let it happen had to be accountable for his negligence. The ox and “its owner also shall be put to death.”[164] At this point the Bible introduces the concept of money damages again: “If, however, the penalty is commuted for a money payment, he shall pay in redemption of his life whatever is imposed upon him.”[165]


Fifth, Punitive Damages: There are a number of passages that introduce not only the concept of making full restitution or pecuniary damages for the thing lost or injured, but also the Bible often requires punitive damages as punishment. In some instances punitive damages are set at twenty percent of the damages, which are paid on top of the damages.[166] In other instances, punitive damages were set at double the damages.[167] The issue really is how egregious was the act of the guilty defendant.


Sixth, the Ascendancy of the Civil Justice System: In the book of Matthew Jesus says,


“You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, do not resist the evil man; [who injures you] but if any one strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too; And if any one wants to sue you and take your undershirt (tunic), let him have your coat also…” (Matthew 5:38-40. Amplified)  


Another passage has Jesus encouraging defendants to settle their cases before trial or face a very harsh reality.[168]


These passages suggest that the old rule of an eye for an eye had given way to civil suits. The first quote suggests that guilty defendants should be willing to give more than what is asked by the plaintiffs—and not less as Mr. Bush is trying to impose by a legal fiat![169]


Mr. Bush’s tort reform proposal violates the letter and spirit of the civil justice system established in the Bible. For anyone, any president or any congress that seeks to tip the scales of justice in favor of those who have injured others, have violated the letter and spirit of the biblical standard! That nation and those leaders that succumb to tampering with justice shall receive the full recompense of their reward in this life!


The Psalmist wrote:


“God stands in the assembly [of the representatives]…in the midst of the magistrates or judges…How long will you magistrates or judges judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? …Do justice to the weak (poor) and fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rescue them out of the hand of the wicked. The magistrates and judges know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in the darkness [of complacent satisfaction]; all the foundations of the earth [the fundamental principles upon which rests the administration of justice] are shaking.” (Psalm 82: 1-6. Amplified Version.)


As Isaiah put it:


“Woe to those judges who issue unrighteous decrees, and to the magistrates who keep causing unjust and oppressive decisions to be recorded, to turn aside the needy from justice and to make plunder of the rightful claim of the poor of My people, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!” (Isaiah 10:1-2, Amplified.)



What Does the Bible Say About Abortions?



The abortion issue has caused so many Americans to vote for Mr. Bush that its inspired a cottage industry in “congressional report card scores.” Coalitions of religious right organizations spend huge amounts of money grading congressional members’ voting records on a report card and mailing the cards all over America, but especially to church members. Abortion is the hottest grade on the card.


The dominionists have turned abortion into such an emotional issue that Pentecostal preachers have either ambushed and murdered doctors who performed legal abortions or they have supported those who did. The illegality of abortion has no biblical basis and has been entirely made up by the religious right to suit their political objectives.


To understand the biblical view of abortions, one must examine miscarriages and how the Bible treated them. In fact, the Bible makes no distinction between a woman who miscarried and a woman who was having her regular menstrual period: she was unclean until all the bleeding stopped in either case.[170] In this respect, an abortion or miscarriage was equal to a woman’s menstrual period and the fetus was not ever considered a person.[171]


By reviewing the law regarding punishment, we can see this even more clearly. As I discussed above, the “eye for an eye” law got into trouble because of the physical differences between men and women. If a woman was injured in a part not shared by a man—the remedy had to be pecuniary. But what would happen if the biblical example in the second paragraph given above was between two pregnant women? What if one pregnant woman injured the other in some way that caused the victim to have a miscarriage? Under those circumstances the “eye for an eye” law would come back into play. The defendant would have to undergo an abortion in the same way she inflicted the abortion on the injured woman. Significantly, Hosea 9:14 describes abortions as a punishment: “Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”


The real topping to this issue that reveals the hypocrisy of the churches is the fact they have never believed a miscarried fetus is a sentient human, else they would have held funerals for them.


There are other aspects of the abortion debate that should be examined. In order to have made it an overriding issue for Catholics and many evangelical churches, the anti-abortion proponents had to lie that a zygote is a sentient human being. Obviously, the anti-abortion proponents believe that it is moral to lie because their ends (the bringing to term of all zygotes) justify their means; that is, lying leads to an allegedly pro-life end.


But biblically, he who lies hates the one he lies to. (Proverbs 26:28.) The scriptures then equate hating to be the moral equivalent of murder. (1 John 3:15.) So the irony is that biblically the anti-abortion proponents and followers who repeat the lies are the biblical equivalent to murderers. Yet there is no biblical injunction or punishment for abortion in the Bible. The issue of abortions is essentially a phony issue because humans abort—they miscarry and the God of the Bible did not label an aborted zygote a “sentient human being.” Period. End of story.



GOP Operatives as Slanderers and Hooligans, Scorner’s and Ridiculers



Slander is condemned in the bible.[172] The righteous man is instructed not to sit in the seat of the scornful.[173] Judgments are prepared for scoffers.[174] Scorning and scoffing and ridicule are condemned by the Bible. Yet the GOP operatives have made slander one of their strongest weapons in their arsenal against political opponents and they use scorn and ridicule as if they were honorable tools of honorable men. Not surprisingly, public figures such as Ann Coulter actually admire the wanton personal attacks of Joseph McCarthy.[175] Actually, Coulter uses McCarthy smear techniques and is a marvelously successful liar.[176] Of course McCarthy was a master at creating suspicion about loyal honest Americans. People who were attacked not only lost their jobs or opportunity to work again in their professions, but they were shunned by everyone else for fear that association with the victim would unleash the same forces against themselves.


McCarthyism is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as:


“A political attitude of the mid-twentieth century closely allied to know-nothingism and characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges.” (Emphasis mine.)


The tactics from the McCarthy era have been adopted with great success in today’s American politics. The words “liberal” and “humanist” have become synonymous for “socialism.” and “anti-Christ.”  The churches who accept these words as smears forget that the Bible promises to bless the liberal heart,[177] and that God, Himself, is a humanist: “For God so loved humanity that He gave His only begotten son…” (my paraphrase of John 3: 16’s pertinent part).


But scoffing and slander continue among the Republicans. It would not be surprising to find that they have published a manual on how to slander a Democrat and get away with it! Smear campaigns have become all too common—even to the point of attacks against fellow Republicans like John McCain.


Yet another quality reigns supreme in Tom DeLay’s congress: Today’s majority members of the Republican Party have converted themselves into hooligans. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “hooligan” as:


“A person that as a representative of some special interest (as a political or racial philosophy) attempts to override the legal and human rights of other people.”


Dominionism has proved itself to be hooligan in nature.[178] It is Machiavellian to the core. Dominionists take what is not theirs; they grab what belongs to others; they steal from the poor to give to the rich; they bribe; they punish with smears and condemnation. And they win elections at any cost—even at the cost of American democracy. In the end, that is the stated goal of Dominionists—they desire to establish an American Theocracy, where every one of them shall reign as “Theo.”


For the Senators and the Representatives who call themselves “Christians” but have done everything in their power to eradicate the rights of the minority party in Congress—there hangs a heavy penalty: they that pervert justice will have to answer to God—if the American people do not make them accountable first.



What’s Wrong With Today’s Churches and “Christians”?



First, the churches are fully aware of the importance of creating an enemy. Jerry Falwell was fond of telling the story of how he found the “key to success.” As a young minister he approached an old pastor and asked, “How can I be successful?” The old man put his arm on Jerry’s shoulder and said, “Son, if you want to be successful, keep a good fight going all the time!”


In fact, M. Scott Peck, in his book, People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil wrote, “There are profound forces at work within a group to keep its individual members together and in line.”[179] According to Peck narcissism is at the root of group cohesiveness. In a milder manifestation, it takes the form of group pride. But a less benign form of group narcissism is “enemy creation.” The group becomes a clique—those who belong to it hate those who don’t. Peck says, “Those who do not belong to the group…are despised as being inferior or evil or both.”[180]


So Jerry Falwell’s mentor was psychologically correct. The best way, according to Peck, to cement group cohesiveness is to foment the group’s hatred of an external enemy.[181] Clearly this message is practiced across America, starting with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan and scores of other copycats. There’s money and power in attacking a hated group of people.


This “enemy creation” technique is of course an anathema to the teachings of Jesus. Where Jesus said to “turn the other cheek,” the Dominionists say, “dominate them; ruin them; run them out of power.” Their philosophy is anti-Christian and anti-Christ to the core.


Secondly, the churches have to create and condone idolatry, and there is no worse form of it than converting a mere man into an object of worship. From members of the Senate like Kay Bailey Hutchison[182] to the poorest of wretches, you can hear George W. Bush being referred to in hushed tones as, “My President.”  Here’s a letter to the White House from an older man: “Sir, … I would give my life to defend my President.”[183] The problem is that the ordinary man on the street has no personal relationship with the president of the United States. Mr. Bush may be “our” president collectively, but he is decidedly not one’s own personal president.


To these people, criticism of the president is unthinkable; it’s tantamount to “treason.” But once again, the religious of this age have no understanding of the scriptures.


Proverbs says:


“Those who forsake the law [of God and man] praise the wicked, but such as keep the law [of God and man] contend with them.” (Proverbs 28: 4 Amplified.) (Emphasis mine.)


However, criticism is also essential in a democracy and the scripture requires that a man be warned if he is transgressing biblical laws and has slipped into spiritual error.


“He who heeds instruction and correction is [not only himself] in the way of life, but is a way of life for others. And he who neglects or refuses reproof [not only himself] goes astray, but causes to err and is a path toward ruin for others.” (Proverbs 10:17 Amplified.)


But see Ezekiel 3:18-21,[184] in one of the most remarkable passages in the scriptures that clearly reveals the Bible does not bestow upon anyone the so-called “security of the believer” doctrine, or the “once-saved-always-saved heresy.” [185] Ezekiel shows us that the righteous are required by God to warn the wicked as well as someone who was righteous and is now in error! If, because the warning was issued, the person changes his behavior, then he or she escapes God’s condemnation. But should the righteous fail to warn the wicked—then the blood of that person is on the head of the righteous man or woman who failed to issue the warning!


Criticism is viewed as a life-saver in the Bible. And those who would try to shut the mouths of the critics—do so at their own spiritual peril.


Thirdly, the churches have resorted to deceit. They are forced to lie in order to keep their ignorant followers believing that their position is the center of truth and moral values! 


If asked, Christians would be forced to admit that lying is a moral wrong. But because of the strong biblical edicts against lying—the “faithful” usually deny that George W. Bush lies, lies, and lies. So his lies have to be spelled out with accurate documentation. Here are a few with links to the documents that provide the proofs. They were compiled by The Poor Man’s Blog at:

“Mr. Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells. He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC. He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about his deficit spending, and now my wrist hurts.” The Poor Man's Blog.

Since God finds liars to be an abomination (Proverbs 12:22) —why would any Christian align himself with a liar rather than someone who speaks the truth? After all, biblically, he who votes for a liar becomes a partaker of the liar’s evil deeds. (2 John 1:11).


We need to ask the churches the following central question:


“Is it moral to vote for an evil man (one who lies, who hates others and who employs coercion to impose his will upon others)—because you expect that individual will vote the way you believe he or she should vote in office?”


If the church elders respond, “Yes, it is moral,” then we must ask why that church violates Christian doctrine and belief. See 2 John 1:9-11 where a Christian cannot encourage, accept or support someone, who in his actions is disloyal to what Jesus taught.


If the church elders respond, “No, it is not moral,” then we must ask why the members of that church voted for an evil man for president and evil congressional candidates as defined in this essay by the Bush administration agenda.



Profile of the Man God Hates


Scott Peck defines evil as, “The exercise of political power—that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion—in order to avoid…spiritual growth.”[186]  He says lying is both a symptom as well as one of the causes of evil.[187] There are several other remarkable facts about evil people revealed by Scott Peck’s book. He wrote in 1983:

“Because their willfulness is so extraordinary and always accompanied by a lust for power—I suspect that the evil are more likely than most to politically aggrandize themselves. Yet at the same time, being unsubmitted, their extreme willfulness is likely to lead them into political debacles.”[188]


Peck reveals the evil can never admit they’ve done anything wrong. They can never say, “I made a mistake.” They have to maintain the appearance of perfection—else the whole edifice of their personalities will crack. Peck explains, “Because they cannot admit to weakness or imperfection in themselves, they must appear [not to suffer deeply.] They must appear to themselves to be continually on top of things, continually in command. Their narcissism demands it.”[189]


Marked by the “appearance” of competence, the evil are driven by fear. Peck says, “They are terrified that the pretense will break down and they will be exposed to the world and to themselves. They are continually frightened that they will come face-to-face with their own evil. Of all emotions, fear is the most painful. Regardless of how well they attempt to appear calm and collected in their daily dealings, the evil live their lives in fear. It is a terror—and a suffering—so chronic, so interwoven into the fabric of their being, that they may not even feel it as such.”[190]

If we take Scott Peck’s analysis and compare it carefully with a profile of the evil in the Bible, we can see remarkable similarities.

There are seven attributes of a man that God hates. God lays out the psychological profile of those traits he abhors. The following are from Proverbs 6:16-19 in the Amplified Version:

1.      “A proud look [the spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others].

2.      “A lying tongue,

3.      “Hands that shed innocent blood,

4.      “A heart that manufactures wicked thoughts and plans,

5.      “Feet that are swift in running to evil,

6.      “A false witness who breathes out lies [even under oath],

7.      “And he who sows discord among his brethren.”


Selah! Pause and think on these things.



End Notes:

Click on the number to take you back to the text.


[1] Daniel 5:25, in the Amplified Version of the Bible. In this essay, I will be using the Amplified Version, which uses brackets for “justified clarifying words or comments not actually expressed in the immediate original text.”


[2] This is an example of how the Amplified Version uses brackets for “justified clarifying words or comments not actually expressed in the immediate original text.”


[3] Daniel 5:28. Amplified Version.


[4] Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America, Thunder’s Mouth Press/ Nations Books, (an imprint of Avalon Publishing Group, Inc.,) New York, 2001.


[5] While the scripture clearly states that Samuel’s sons were base and did not measure up to the standard of true jurists, having taken bribes and “perverted justice,” it is improbable, given Samuel’s character, that he would have passed the leadership to his sons, but certainly he would have found a worthy successor or several worthy successors as judges. That option was taken off the table by the elders of the people who insisted the people wanted a king like the other nations. 1 Samuel 8:1-7. Amplified Version.


[6] It seems that the people of the ancient Israeli nation were just as hooked on appearance as the majority of the churchgoers are in America today! The scripture describes Saul this way: “Kish had a son named Saul, a choice young man and handsome; among all the Israelites there was not a man more handsome than he. He was a head taller than any of the people.” 1 Samuel 9:2 Amplified Version.


[7] See Katherine Yurica’s articles: “Fraud Traced to the White House,” http://www.yuricareport/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm


and “Document Reveals Mr. Bush Took Aim at Iraqi Oil Before the 2000 Election.” http://www.yuricareport/Energy/BushWarPlansFoundInEnergyPolicy.htm


[8] The signers to the “Principles” read like a who’s who of the Bush administration plus a chorus line of supporters: Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, plus others including world famous: William Bennett, Jeb Bush, and Dan Quayle. Project for the New American Century “Principles” may be found at:


And Rebuilding America’s Defenses may be found at:


[9] “Fraud Traced to the White House,” by Katherine Yurica. http://www.yuricareport/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm


[10] Rebuilding America’s Defenses may be found at:


[11] Ibid. One cannot help asking, “Isn’t it an amazing coincidence that the neo-cons’ prayer was answered”? However, God is not mocked: they that looked at Pearl Harbor and desired her were already guilty of murder in their hearts according to the words of Jesus (in reference to adultery) in Matthew 5:28.


[12] See Katherine Yurica’s articles: “Fraud Traced to the White House,” http://www.yuricareport/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm


and “Document Reveals Mr. Bush Took Aim at Iraqi Oil Before the 2000 Election.” http://www.yuricareport/Energy/BushWarPlansFoundInEnergyPolicy.htm


[13] “Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?” Leslie Stahl reports on CBS, January 11, 2004. At the Yurica Report at:


[14] Mr. O'Neill's account of the National Security Council meeting is from: Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty, Simon & Shuster, January 13, 2004, 368 pages. Ron Suskind wrote The Price of Loyalty, which was based on O’Neill’s notes and recollection of events in the early Bush administration.


[15] Ibid. And see also “Drinking the Kool-Aid” by W. Patrick Lang, Middle East Policy, Vol. XI, No. 2, Summer 2004 available in a PDF file here:


And at the Yurica Report:


[16] One of the most revealing facts about the U.S. Government’s Department of Defense (DOD) is how a preemptive military attack is defined. The DOD’s dictionary defines the term as: “An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.” The definition implies moral rectitude. It leads the reader to believe that any U.S. preemptive strike is morally warranted. But one way to test this definition is to place it in a valid syllogism. When we do this, we can plainly see the definition sets up a false premise. To understand why this is so we can write it this way:


All U.S. preemptive strikes are based on incontrovertible evidence of an imminent attack.

All attacks on Iraq were preemptive strikes.


Therefore, all attacks on Iraq were based on incontrovertible evidence of an imminent attack.


We now know that the conclusion is false. And if the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises is false. The premise that is false is the one taken from the Department of Defense’s dictionary.


[17] “WMD In Iraq, Evidence and Implications” compiled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. See the summary of the Carnegie Report at:

The page contains a link to the full 111 page report.


[18] Ibid.


[19] Ibid.


[20] For a comprehensive list of statements made by Mr. Bush see John Dean’s article, “Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About the Reason for War an Impeachable Offense?” at


See David Corn’s perceptive analysis of Bush lies at:


Robert Sheer, “Truth About Iraq Finally Has Its Pants On,” The Nation, June 25, 2004,  at:


Patrick Buchanan, “Where Are They Mr. President?” At:


Eric Alterman, “Bush Lies, Media Swallows,” The Nation, November 25, 2002. at:  Alterman wrote:  “To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used ‘for missions targeting the United States.’ Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be ‘six months away from developing a weapon.’ Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.”


Jonathan Swartz, “Business As Usual” at



Here are several documented lies from the Poor Man’s blog at:


Mr. Bush lied about finding WMD in Iraq. He lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program.


For a whole series of lies, the founder of the, which is written by Dylan Otto Krider reveals Mr. Bush’s lies:


“Perhaps Bush was merely ignorant when he claimed troop strength was decreasing in Afghanistan.”

“Or when he said we went to War because Hussein wouldn’t let UN inspectors in.

“Perhaps he made the same “misstatement” again because he doesn’t read the newspaper.

“Perhaps he was simply deluded when he claimed we found the WMD

“And then that he never said they had any

“Maybe he’s deluded now when he claims we entered Iraq because he refused to “disarm,” as he did a few days ago.


Here Krider demonstrates how the Bush “administration repeatedly manipulates data in government reports.”


[21] See John Dean, “Why A Special Prosecutor’s Investigation Is Needed,” published at the Yurica Report at:

Mr. Dean writes, “So egregious and serious are Bush’s misrepresentations that they appear to be a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the public.” Dean examines Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address of January 28, 2003. He found eight major misrepresentations of fact that constitute making “false statements” under Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 of the United States Code. It is a felony to make false statements to Congress. Since 1955, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Bramblet, that section is applicable to the President. The statute, according to Peter W. Morgan, an attorney for Robert McFarlane during the Iran Contra investigation, does not require a specific intent to deceive the Congress. And it does not require that statements be written, or that they be sworn. Morgan noted that the false statements statute “even reaches ‘misrepresentations in a president’s state of the union address.’” Go to the Yurica Report link for links to the Federal Statute and the Bramblet opinion.


John Dean also examines the lies of Mr. Bush in his book, Worse Than Watergate, Little Brown and Company, 2004 at pages 136 with footnotes at 232-233.  “With the Bush-Cheney presidency, it appears that mendacity has become policy. Their lying relates to matters large and small. Lies are told to hide, to mislead, and to gain political advantage. Their pervasive lying is remarkably well documented and that documentation has been ongoing.”


[22] Perhaps one reason why uneducated and simpleminded people believe Mr. Bush is because they have never studied the techniques used by liars. See Dennis Hans article, “Exposing Bush and His Techniques of Deceit” at the Yurica Report.


[23] James Dunnigan, “The Air Campaign in Iraq,” May 21, 2003, can be read at:


[24] From Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, October 28, 2004, “Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion.” Excluding the deaths from Falluja, the study estimates that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred.,000.html


[25] Lancet: "100,000 civilians dead since Iraq invasion" by Richard Horton, Monday November 01, 2004 at 10:01 AM and “Iraq civilian toll 'more than 100,000'” from The Australian.  May be read at:


[26] Perhaps the difference between the two tragedies is the difference between the U.S. media’s responses. The damage and displacement in Asia was photographed. The killing and rupture in Iraq has been hidden from American eyes.


[27] “How to Detect Evil” by Katherine Yurica, a review of Scott Peck’s People of the Lie.


[28] See where our fallen soldiers are from at the Yurica Report’s “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” :


“Press Reports on U.S. Casualties: About 17,000 Short, UPI Says U.S. Suffers 25,029 casualties” By Mark Benjamin, UPI, published: September 15, 2004. Read at:,000Short.html


And see David Hackworth’s article, “Americans suffer more than 14,000 casualties in Iraq

Between 14,000 and 22,000 military men and women have been medically evacuated from Iraq” at:


[29] See “A Short Review of the Preemptive Strike Doctrine” by Katherine Yurica, at to art_files/Preemptive Strike Reasoning. htm


[30] Ibid.


[31] See the Conference Fact Sheet, “Rebuilding Afghanistan & Iraq, Pursuing Opportunities and Managing Risks,” by MFM Trade Meetings, offering “Security, Financing, Legal Issues and Managing Risks” At:


Also see:  “Bush Sells Indulgences to Get Into Purgatory, Not to Get Out” by Katherine Yurica, October 29, 2003. The Yurica Report,


[32] See the Conference Fact Sheet at

And see the Conference published agenda, “Rebuilding Afghanistan & Iraq, Pursuing Opportunities and Managing Risks,” showing who was making the presentation for each time slot and topic covered:



[36] Pillsbury Winthrop’s trade news bulletin at:


[37] See “Fraud Traced to the White House” by Katherine Yurica at:


And “Document Reveals that Mr. Bush Took Aim at Iraqi Oil Before the 2000 Election” by Katherine Yurica at:


[38] Aegis, a UK firm; Bearing Point; Bechtel; BKSH & Associates; CACI and Titan; Custer Battles; Halliburton; Lockheed Martin; Loral Satellite; and Qualcomm.


[39] From the Center for Corporate Policy, “The Top Ten War Profiteers of 2004.” At:


[40] Ibid.


[41] See the accounts in the Old Testament: Joshua 6:23; 1 Samuel 26:4.


[42] Seymour Hersh, Chain of Command, Harper Collins, Publishers, 2004, at pages 4-5.


(See also “A review of Hersh’s book”:


And Hersh’s articles published on the web: from “The Gray Zone”:


From Hersh’s “Chain of Command”


From “Infiltrating the U.S. Military: Gen. Boykin’s Warriors by Katherine Yurica at:


“Authorizing Torture: a Leaked Memo,” at:


[43] Ibid.


[44] Ibid.


[45] Ibid. pp.5-6.


[46] Ibid. p. 5.


[47] Read a devastating review of Alberto Gonzales’ record in a pdf file published by People for the American Way at:'sBody/OnGonzalesPFAW.pdf


[48] See Alberto Gonzales’ Memo to the president regarding torture at:


[49] See Alberto Gonzales’ Memo to the president regarding torture at:


[50] “Infiltrating the U.S. Military: General Boykin’s ‘Kingdom Warriors’ On the Road to Abu Ghraib,” by Katherine Yurica, October 12, 2004, the Yurica Report at:


[51] The email was dated May 22, 2004, and refers to “interrogation techniques made lawful” by the “President's Executive Order.”  For a record of the stash of emails collected by the ACLU go to:  See also the New York Times editorial, “The Roots of Abu Ghraib” at:


and click on this PDF link:


[52] See the important role Mr. Gonzales played in obtaining legal opinions: “Bush’s Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture,” by David Johnston and Neil Lewis, January 5, 2005, the New York Times, at:


[53] See Alberto Gonzales’ Memo to the president regarding torture at:


And See Colin Powell’s response to Gonzales’ at:


See the Department of Justice Torture Memo at:

See PDF files of Gonzales’ memo and Colin Powell’s response.


[54]“US ‘Not Bound by Torture Laws’” reported by the BBC News, June 7, 2004, at:


This Comey Memorandum of December 30, 2004 may be read in its entirety at:


[55] “Authorizing Torture,” by Nonna Gorilovskaya, June 9, 2004, Mother Jones, (May June 2004 Issue.) See at:

For the personal sworn statements of what eight prisoners were subjected to, click on each of the following PDF files:

Prisoner's Sworn Statement7787, Prisoner's Sworn Statement3077, Prisoner's Sworn Statement150422, Prisoner's Sworn Statement150425, Prisoner's Sworn Statement50542-2, Prisoner's Sworn Statement151108, Prisoner's Sworn StatementNameWithheld, Prisoner's Sworn Statement15427



[56] Ibid.


[57] Editorial on Mr. Gonzales’s Testimony, The Washington Post, January 7, 2005. But compare the New York Times editorial, "Mr. Gonzales Speaks," January 7, 2005.


[58]  The Comey Memorandum of December 30, 2004 may be read in its entirety at:


The ideas and concepts contained in what is being called the August 1, 2002 Department of Justice Memorandum were rewritten in a memo dated December 30, 2004 for James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General. The rewritten legal opinion specifically refers to the fact that the August memo included “potential defenses to liability” for the President as Commander-in-Chief. The memorandum also states the following: “We have…modified in some important respects our analysis of the legal standards applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 2340-2340A. For example, we disagree with statements in the August 2002 Memorandum limiting “severe” pain under the statute to “excruciating and agonizing” pain, id. At 19, or to pain ‘equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” id. At 1. There are additional areas where we disagree with or modify the analysis in the August 2002 Memorandum, as identified in the discussion below.”


[59] See a copy of this letter, which includes a brief biography of each high ranking officer at:


[60] See Nicholas Kristoff’s comments in his New York Times article at


[61] See Genesis 18 and particularly verses 20-33. Genesis 19 describes how the angels, appearing like normal men were able to get Lot, his wife and two daughters out of Sodom and how all the men of the town apparently desired to have sex with the angelic men disguised as mere men. The scripture is not explicit as to the sins of Sodom, but we do know that Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd to do with as they pleased. However, Genesis chapter 18, reveals that Abraham negotiated with God in an effort to save the cities. His negotiation, after starting with a higher number, reached the number ten. If God found ten righteous people in the city would he spare the city? God said yes.


[62] See Jeremiah 5:26-29 where God asks, “Shall I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?” The transgression here was not sexual—it was the practice of deceit, deception, and fraud that riled God with the final sin to be: “They do not judge and plead with justice the cause of the fatherless that it may prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy.” If we couple that passage with the judgment of Jesus in Matthew 25: 32-46, where the Lord casts out all those who failed to care for the needy, clothe them, heal them and minister to them, these sins are not outweighed by the presence of the righteous because the righteous become oppressed themselves in such an environment. See Amos 5:12-13.


[63] The church leaders “commit adultery and walk in lies; they encourage and strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that none returns from his wickedness. They have all of them become to Me as Sodom and its inhabitants as Gomorrah.” (Jeremiah 23:14)


[64] People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck, M.D. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1983 at page 225: “A less benign but practically universal form of group narcissism is what might be called ‘enemy creation,’ or hatred of the ‘out-group.’…Those who do not belong to the group…are despised as being inferior or evil or both. If a group does not already have an enemy, it will most likely create one in short order.”


[65] See how the Roman Catholic Church attempted to intimidate voters:


[67] There is a novel that compassionately tells the story of a disturbed personality, a man who struggles to heal himself of pedophilia. The book may no longer be in print, but if it can be found, it is worth the reading. The author is Charles E. Israel, the book: The Mark, published in the 1960’s by Macmillan of Canada.


[68] Matthew 5:27-28, and 5:31-32.


[69] Andrew Sullivan, columnist for the UK’s Sunday Times, November 11, 2004, at:


See also Andrew Sullivan’s article “Federalism Now” in the December 2, 2004 New Republic at:,,2089-1347651,00.html


[70] Ibid.


[71] Ibid.


[72] Ibid.


[73] “Televangelist Paul Crouch Attempts to Keep Accuser Quiet
A former worker at TBN threatened to disclose an alleged 1996 homosexual encounter.” By William Lobdell, Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2004.


[74] Of course, the “Good Father” is an allusion to God. Bush’s comments remind me very much of Ben Kinchlow’s comments on the 700 Club in the 1980’s. Kinchlow was railing against the farmers who according to him were putting their faith in government instead of “putting their faith in God.” They were “trusting in government instead of trusting in God” Thus “government” had become a false idol to them. The bottom line was that looking to government for help was and is an anathema to those who accept this cult doctrine from the religious right.


[75] So Others Might Eat (SOME), a coalition of religions forming a charitable organization, which according to the President, delivers 1,200 meals a day to the homeless. As worthy as it is, its efforts do not begin to touch the needs of the Washington D.C. area, where 16.9 percent of the population live in poverty.


See also “Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row, More Also Lack Health Coverage,” by Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte, Washington Post, August 27, 2004. at:


[76] President Bush said on November 20, 2001: “Today, I am pleased to announce that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is distributing more than $1 billion this year in grants to community charities which serve the homeless. It is the largest such grant in the history of the country. It is a grant program that will help provide food and shelter, drug treatment, job training, and other vital services.

“It is a part of our government's desire to support the armies of compassion. We don't want government to take the good Father's place. We want the government to stand side-by-side with the good people of SOME and programs like it all around the country.”


[77] “Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row, More Also Lack Health Coverage,” by Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte, Washington Post, August 27, 2004. at:


[78] Ibid.


[79] Quoted from: “Rep. Tom Allen Outlines Concerns about Medicare Legislation,” August 20, 2003. At:


[80] “Forced” is a mild word. See my article: “Rogue Republican Dons in Congress Tear Up the Constitution,
Exclude Democrats and Accept a New Title: ‘The Godfathers’: Why the New Medicare Law, the Energy Bill May Be Unconstitutional.” By Katherine Yurica. At:


[81] Quoted from: “Rep. Tom Allen Outlines Concerns about Medicare Legislation,” August 20, 2003. At:


[82] Ibid. See also: “Two Holes in the Medicare Drug Law,” by Fred Brock, January 11, 2004, New York Times, at:


[83] “61 Percent of Medicare's New Prescription Drug Subsidy Is Windfall Profit to Drug Makers” by Alan Sager, Ph. D. and Deborah Socolar, M.P.H., the Directors, Health Reform Program ( Boston University School of Public Health. At: and see the report by clicking on this PDF file:\Medicare_Rx_bill_windfallprofitBostonU.pdf


[84] “Medicare Law Is Seen Leading to Cuts in Drug Benefits for Retirees,” by Robert Pear, New York Times, July 14, 2004; plus “Truth Emerges About Bush Misleading on Medicare,” at ;


“Two Holes in the Medicare Drug Law,” By Fred Brock, New York Times, January 11, 2004; at:


“Bush Misleads Seniors on New Drug Cards” at:


See The New York Times editorial, “The Actuary and the Actor,” at:


“Prescription Drugs: The Medicare Savings Mirage,” at:


“The Republican Medicare Bill Means Suffering and Death for Our Seniors,” at:


[85] Laura Meckler, “Bush Looks to States for Faith-Based Initiatives,” Philadelphia Inquirer, January 4, 2005. At:


[86]  Ibid.


[87] “Medicare Premiums to Jump a Record 17%” by Johanna Neuman, the Los Angeles Times, September 4, 2004. At:


[88] “Medicaid Cuts On the Table for 2005,” by Lawrence M. O’Rourke, December 11, 2004, Sacramento Bee, at:


“Administration Looks to Curb Growth of Medicaid Spending,” by Robert Pear, December 20, 2004, New York Times, at:


“Bush Team Prepares to Swing Budget Ax,” by Joel Havemann, December 26, 2004, Los Angeles Times, at:


[89] “Governors Unite in Fight Against Medicaid Cuts,” by Pam Belluck, December 25, 2004, New York Times at:


[90] “Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle” by Jonathan Weisman, August 13, 2004, the Washington Post and reprinted by at:

or at; Security/TaxBurdenShiftsToMiddleClass.html


See the actual Congressional Budget Office Report here at: Security/CBOReportShowsTaxBurdenOnMiddle.pdf


[91] “The Impact of the Bush Budget on Black and Hispanic Families: Leaving Too Many Behind.” Here at: Security/BushTaxCutsHurtPoor.pdf


[92] “Confident Bush Outlines Ambitious Plan for 2nd Term.” By Richard W. Stevenson, November 5, 2004, New York Times. At:


“Bush Lays Out a Plan to Revise the Social Security System,” by Peter Baker, Washington Post, December 17, 2004, at: Security/BushUrgesOverhaulOfSocialSecurity.html


[93] “Social Security Doing Just Fine,” by Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, at:


“Stopping the Bum’s Rush,” by Paul Krugman, January 4, 2005, New York Times, at: Security/SocialSecurityBum’sRush_Krugman.html


“Buying Into Failure,” by Paul Krugman, December 17, 2004, New York Times, at:


“Bush May Be Borrowing Trouble With Social Security Plan, by Ronald Browstein, Los Angeles Times, December 20, 2004, at:


“Social Security Reform, With One Big Catch,” by Edmund L. Andrews, December 12, 2004, the New York Times. At:


[94] “Vast Borrowing Seen in Altering Social Security,” by Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times, November 28, 2004, at: Security/VastBorrowingNecessaryToAlterSocialSec.html


[95] “Social Security Reform, With One Big Catch,” by Edmund L. Andrews, December 12, 2004, the New York Times. At:


[96] From the Despoiling of America by Katherine Yurica, at:” Pat Robertson’s 700 Club reaches millions of born again and Pentecostal Christians in America. Where were the protests? This is one of the most cold-blooded transfers of money from the poor and the middle classes to the richest corporations in America ever described:


On August 14, 1985, Pat Robertson unveiled his ingenious program on how to get rid of Social Security. The plan amazingly resembles sections of the Bush Administration’s Medicare Prescription Drug bill passed in December of 2003. Robertson, however, outlined what to do twenty years ago as follows:


1.  “We should say to all the elderly, ‘You’re going to be taken care of. The government’s going to pay you. Don’t worry about it. [You’ll] get your Social Security like you’re expecting, ‘cause you’re counting on it.”


2. “There should be a gradual moving [up] of [the retirement] age to reflect the fact that we’re healthier and we live longer and people should have dignity and be allowed to work a little bit longer.”


3. “The last thing we should do is to begin to let the younger workers slowly but surely go into private programs where the money is tax sheltered and over the years build up their own money and that would in turn, through the intermediary organizations, banks, insurance companies, would invest in American industry. They would buy plants and equipment, put people to work and it would help a tremendous boom. Imagine …$100 billion dollars a year flowing into American industry. It would be marvelous.”


[97] The Despoiling of America by Katherine Yurica, at:” Pat Robertson’s 700 Club reaches millions of born again and Pentecostal Christians in America. Where were the protests?


“The following interview reveals the deep seated hatred Dominionists have against governmental medical assistance to the elderly. The interview was conducted on August 1, 1985 with Dr. Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of thirty-five books. Danuta Soderman was a co-host on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club.


“Williams: “[T]he bigger problem is the whole concept of funding somebody’s medical care by a third party. And I might also mention here, that is, I saw in the audience many older and senior citizens. Now whose responsibility is it to take care of those people? I think it lies with their children and it also lies with themselves. That is, I think Christians should recognize that charity is good. I mean charity, when you reach into your pocket to help your fellow man for medical care or for food or to give them housing. But what the government is doing in order to help these older citizens is not charity at all. It is theft. That is, the government is using power to confiscate property that belongs to one American and give, or confiscate their money, and provide services for another set of Americans to whom it does not belong. That is the moral question that Christians should face with not only Medicare, Medicaid. But many other programs as well….Well, people should have insurance. But I would say if our fellow man is found in need, does not have enough, well that’s a role for the church, that’s a role for the family, that’s a role for private institutions to take care of these things.”


“Danuta Soderman: “I thought it was interesting you talked about Medicare and Medicaid as not being a moral issue. A lot of people would think that to want to eliminate the program is rather uncompassionate—that there is something immoral about taking away something that people are relying so heavily upon, but you said that there is no moral issue here.”


“Williams: “I think the moral issue runs the other way. That is, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What is the moral basis of confiscating the property of one American and giving it to another American to whom it does not belong for whatever reason?’ That is, I think we Americans have to ask ourselves is there something that can justify a legalized theft? And I think that even if the person is starving in the street that act, in and of itself, doesn’t justify my taking money from somebody else.”


[98] “Two Views of Tsunami Relief: Government Doing Too Much, Not Enough” by Susan Jones CNSNews, January 3, 2005 and  “U.S. Should Not help Tsunami Victims,” by David Holcberg CNSNews, January 3, 2005, which may be read at:


[99] Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, (Thomas Nelson Publishers), 1983 at page 61.


[100] “Tsunami Aftermath; Are We Stingy? Yes” New York Times Editorial, December 30, 2004, 473 words. Editorial available only at a fee:

“President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday’s tsunamis in Asia.”


[101] “U.S. Vows Big Increase in Aid for Victims of Asian Disaster,” by David E. Sanger and Warren Hoge, December 31, 2004, the New York Times, at:$350M.html


[102] “Land of Penny Pinchers,” by Nicholas D. Kristof, January 5, 2005, New York Times; at:


[103] All America and the world watched as Mr. Bush brushed off the petitions for an independent investigation from the families of those killed at the World Trade Center. When a commission was grudgingly granted, the government agencies refused to cooperate with it, and specific questions of the victims’ relatives were never answered. One of the most salient questions was: Why didn’t the military scramble their planes when it was known that three commercial airliners were off their flight plans? It is also significant that Mr. Bush refused to appear alone at the commission and he and Condoleezza Rice refused to testify under oath.


[104] “Remarks of the President on Immigration Policy,” at the White House, January 7, 2004. At:


[105] Ibid.


[107] “MSRG Special Report: Restrictions on Civil Liberties, Views of Islam, & Muslim Americans,” by Media & Society Research Group, Cornell University, December, 2004; at: Rights/CornellMuslimReportCivilRights.pdf


[108] “Martin Luther’s Sermon on Trade and Usury,” delivered in 1520, Luther Works, Volume 45, Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1955, at:


[109] “A Timeline of Failures,” by Craig Aaron, October 28, 2004, In These Times, at:


Note: Craig Aaron has written “Capitol Report,” a monthly column on Washington politics, for In These Times since he became a Senior Editor in 2003. As an investigative reporter for Washington, DC’s Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.


[110] “Bush Forces a Shift in Regulatory Thrust OSHA Made More Business-Friendly,” by Amy Goldstein and Sarah Cohen, Washington Post, August 15, 2004, at:


[111] “No Clear Skies,” by Donovan Webster and Michael Scherer, September/October 2003, Mother Jones, Special Report: “The UnGreening of America: How the Bush administration is rolling back 30 years of environmental progress,” “The Bottom Line,” at


Another resource is: “Dirty Air, Dirty Power, Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants,” published by Clear the Air, June 2004: at:

and at:


[112]  “Dirty Air, Dirty Power, Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants,” published by Clear the Air, June 2004: page 4 at:


[113] “The Bottom Line,” from September/October 2003, Mother Jones, Special Report: “The UnGreening of America at


[114] Ibid.


[115] “Bush Record: New Priorities in Environment,” by Felicity Barringer, September 14, 2004, the New York Times; at:


[116] S.I. McMillen, None of These Diseases, (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1975 pp. 13-14.


[117] Ibid.


[118] “Battlefield Earth,” by Bill Moyers, December 8, 2004, The full speech of Mr. Moyers is at:


[119] See Deuteronomy 20:19-20, which stands for the conservation of trees; it prohibits the cutting down of fruit trees in an area outside a city that is under siege. When the people are besieging a city for a long time—the biblical law points out, fruit trees will sustain the life of those besieging the city by providing food. The scripture says clearly, “for is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you?”


A justified extrapolation of the law is: Trees that are essential to life may not be cut down wantonly. (Amplified or New English).


[120] Deuteronomy 22:6-7 stands for the principle of protecting wild life. If man should come upon a wild bird’s nest, either on the ground or in a tree, and a mother is sitting on eggs or young ones, the biblical rule prohibits the taking of the mother bird. It allows the eggs or young to be taken. The Bible promises that if the wildlife conservation is practiced—it will bring long life to the people who practice it. Also see Leviticus 25: 7 where every seven years a field must rest from being tilled and the crops that grow on the land that year may not be harvested, but they are to furnish food for the poor, the aliens, and for not only domestic beasts but wild animals shall be fed by those crops. (Amplified or New English).


[121] Proverbs 12: 10, “A [consistently] righteous man regards the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Amplified.) Deuteronomy 25: 4, “You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain.” Amplified. See also 1 Corinthians 9:9-10; 1 Timothy 5:17-18; Exodus 23:4-5 stands for the proposition that God expects man to care for his animals. It requires man to bring back a lost animal even to his enemy and requires that a man help his enemy to release his animal from too heavy a burden. Exodus 23:12 reveals the Sabbath—a day of rest—was made so that the ox and donkey—the beast of burdens could rest.  (Amplified or New English)


[122]Exodus 23:10-11 provides rest for the land. (Amplified or New English).


[123] See also the following references that show conclusively that the first century Christians believed they were living in the “last days.” 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-8; Heb. 1:1-2; Jas. 5:3; 1 Pet.1:5,20; 2 Pet. 3:8; 1Jn.2:18; Jude 18.


[124] The New York Times, December 24, 2004. “The conviction that every vote must be counted in a democratic election should be automatic. But lately, as an extraordinary number of contests seem to be decided by just a few ballots, it's been depressing to see how few politicians are willing to simply take their chances on the fairest possible count.


“A State Supreme Court justice in Washington State, Susan Owens, put it best when she addressed Republican attempts to disallow more than 700 uncounted ballots in the photo-finish governor's race there. "You're looking at it from the point of view of the winner or the loser," she said. "Shouldn't we be looking at it from the point of view of the voter?"


“The decision to count those votes, which had been overlooked or erroneously set aside, should not have been just an obvious ruling. The question should never have come up in the first place. The American political culture is supposed to prize the fairness of the fight more than the outcome.”


[125] See the Yurica Report’s Directory of Election Fraud at:


And see “What You Can Do About It” at:


[126] I realize, of course, that Mr. Justice Scalia, a most prominent Roman Catholic Christian, might disagree with my conclusion based upon his method of interpreting the Constitution—particularly in his writings on whether or not the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. His reasoning asserts: if the punishment was allowed at the time of the drafting of the amendment,—it would be allowed today because the drafters did not have the death penalty in mind. In fact, Mr. Scalia would not be against the death penalty for horse stealing because it existed in 1791. But if we utilize his argument to determine whether the Bible prohibits vote rigging, his argument could go this way: “If there were no express prohibitions against vote rigging in the Bible when it was written, then the scriptures cannot be interpreted to include vote rigging today.” He would, then assert, no doubt, “Therefore God allows fraudulently rigged devices for counting the quantity of votes cast today!” This position shows the absurdity of Mr. Scalia’s original thinking. On the other hand, Mr. Scalia might recognize the absurdity and say that the existence of devices that counted quantities existed in the Bible, and it was an abomination to God if someone owned a rigged device then—therefore it would be prohibited now. It’s a matter of how narrowly Mr. Scalia is willing to construe the biblical text.


As Scalia himself describes it, “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead…It means today not what current society…thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.”[54] Once the original thinking is determined, the judge can enforce the Constitution only as a document that is bound by the time zone in which a particular passage was written. And Antonin Scalia, “God’s Justice and Ours,” in First Things 123 (May 2002): 17-21, ) And see )


See my essay, “The Despoiling of America” by Katherine Yurica, at the Yurica on the web. The full address is:


Also, “The Despoiling of America” is published in Toward a New Political Humanism, eds. Barry F. Seidman and Neil J. Murphy, Prometheus Books, New York, 2004.


[127] Joseph N. Welch of the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP represented the U.S. Army pro bono in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. I remember those hearings and Mr. Welch’s words still ring out: “Have you no shame Senator? Have you no shame?”


[128] “He who states his case first seems right, until his rival comes and cross-examines him.” Proverbs18:17 (Amplified.)


[129] Deuteronomy 22: 13-17. (Amplified.)


[130] Exodus 22:13. (Amplified.)


[131] Deuteronomy 19: 15. (Amplified.)


[132] Deuteronomy 22:13-17. (Amplified.)


[133] Leviticus 5:1 (Amplified.)


[134] Michael Moore captured Bush addressing a group of elites in his documentary Fahrenheit 911 in which he said, “You are my base.”


[135] “The Justice System,” The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights.


[136] See the text above following notes 38-40. Also note that Kenneth Lay, the former head of Enron hasn’t been tried yet. General Taguba wrote that he believed Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan was responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib, but there has been no indictment of the man and he is presently working for the leading intelligence officer in Iraq.


[137] “Why Bush Opposes Dred Scott: It’s Code for Roe v. Wade” by Timothy Noah, October 11, 2004.


“Roe=Dred” by Katha Pollitt, October 15, 2004, The Nation  at:



[138] “A Tough Roe: Will the Democratic Party Be Abortion’s Final Victim?” by Peggy Noonan, January 20, 2003, Opinion Journal.


[139] Dominionism is a new politico/religio cult movement that teaches its adherents that God wants them to help set up His Kingdom on earth by becoming the leaders of God’s future theocratic society now. Pat Robertson uses the term “dominion” to mean having power over others: hence to dominate them. This power according to Robertson belongs only to the Christians. It has become a potent political ideology. According to Bill Moyers,


“Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election -- 231 legislators in total -- more since the election -- are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert
and Majority Whip Roy Blunt.” From “Battle Field Earth,” by Bill Moyers. Click here to go back to the Social Security Section.




[140] “You shall not repeat or raise a false report; you shall not join with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you bear witness at a trial so as to side with a multitude to pervert justice.” (Exodus 23:1-2. Amplified.)


[141] “Guilty Until Proven Innocent,” from the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty at: & Legal/CapitalPunishmentStatistics.html


[142] Ibid.


[143] Exodus 23:7 Amplified.


[144] “White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales’s Texas Execution Memos: How They Reflect on the President, And May Affect Gonzales’s Supreme Court Chances,” by John Dean, at & Legal/Alberto Gonzales’ Execution Memos.html


[146] The URLs are in the endnote just preceding this note.


[147] See Dennis Crew’s article, “Do We Have a Christian Presidency?” at:


[148] “[A]nd [be very careful] not to condemn to death the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify and acquit the wicked.”


[149] “Bush Begins Drive to Limit Malpractice Suite Awards,” by Robert Pear, January 6, 2005, New York Times.


[150] “Bush’s tort reform efforts to start at ‘judicial hellhole,’” by Mark Silva, January 3, 2005, Chicago Tribune at:


[151] “Bush Begins Drive to Limit Malpractice Suite Awards,” by Robert Pear, January 6, 2005, New York Times.


[152] Ibid.


[153] Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights at:


[154] “Bush Pushes for Tort Reform,” CBS/AP, Jan. 5, 2005. “Leading Democrats in Congress say the number of doctors practicing in Illinois has risen in recent years, despite higher malpractice insurance rates that they say are driven by the state’s weak insurance regulation.” At:


[155] Ibid.


[156] “Bush’s tort reform efforts to start at ‘judicial hellhole,’” by Mark Silva, January 3, 2005, Chicago Tribune at:


[157] Ibid.


[158] “Bush Begins Drive to Limit Malpractice Suite Awards,” by Robert Pear, January 6, 2005, New York Times, at:


[159] Exodus 21:23-25 (New English Version); Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 (Amplified)


[160] Exodus 21:22 New English Version and compare to the Amplified Version.


[161] Ibid.


[162] See Exodus 21:12-13. If a man kills without laying in wait his fate depended upon the facts revealed at trial. (Amplified Version.)


[163] Exodus 21:28, Amplified or New English Version.


[164] Exodus 21: 29. Amplified.


[165] Exodus 21: 30.


[166] Leviticus 6:5 (Amplified Version).


[167] Exodus 22:1-10 (Amplified)


[168] Again Jesus says, “If someone sues you, come to terms with him promptly while you are both on your way to court; otherwise he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the constable, and you will be put in jail. I tell you, once you are there you will not be let out till you have paid the last farthing.” (New English Version.)


[169] I recommend a report published by Public Citizen answering many of the fallacies Mr. Bush is spreading. Read the Public Citizen response to Newsweek’s December 15, 2003 attack against our legal system. Read it at:

[170] There are three passages that demonstrate this point: First a woman’s monthly menstrual cycle is described: “And if a woman has a discharge, her [regular] discharge of blood of her body, she shall be in her impurity or separation for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.” Leviticus 15: 19.


Secondly, a miscarriage or anything that causes bleeding is dealt with at Leviticus 15: 25: “And if a woman has an issue of blood many days not in the time of her separation, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her [regular] impurity, all the days of the issue of her uncleanness she shall be as in the days of her impurity; she shall be unclean.” The Bible makes no distinction between the aborted fetus and the discharged blood--both make her unclean.


Thirdly, the woman cannot have intercourse during her regular menstrual period or during the period of bleeding surrounding an abortion. “Also you shall not have intercourse with a woman during her [menstrual period or similar] uncleanness.” Leviticus 18: 19 (Amplified.)


[171] The difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is that while both are defined as the expulsion of a human fetus, a miscarriage is the “expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable, usually between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation” and an abortion is “the expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable during the first 12 weeks of gestation.”


[172] Numbers 14:36; Psalm 31:13; Proverbs 10:18; Jeremiah 6:28 and 9:4, 6:28; Psalm 50:20, 101:5; 2 Samuel 19:27.


[173] Psalm 1:1.


[174] Proverbs 19:29


[175] “Has She No Shame,” by Joe Conason, July 4, 2003, at:


[176] Ibid.


[177] God is a liberal! See the following scriptures: “The liberal person shall be enriched, and he who waters shall himself be watered.” Proverbs 11:25 (Amplified); this verse has a cross-reference to II Corinthians 9:6-10, a magnificent description of God’s love for the liberal. See James 1:5, “Ask of God, that giveth to all liberally.” And see Isaiah 32:5 in the KJV, where the prophet foresees a time when the vile will no longer be called “liberal.”


[178] See Katherine Yurica’s essay, “The Despoiling of America,” at


“Rogue Republican Dons in Congress, Tear Up the Constitution, Exclude Democrats and Accept A New Title: ‘The Godfathers’” by Katherine Yurica at:


[179] From People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck, M.D. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1983, page 225.


[180] Ibid.


[181] Ibid.


[182] See Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s speech in the Senate at:


[183] A letter to the White House from Michael at:


[184] “If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die, and you do not give him warning or speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at your hand.


“Yet if you warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself.


“Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness—right doing and right standing with God—and some gift or providence which I lay before him he perverts into an occasion to sin, and he commits iniquity, he shall die; because you have not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also you have delivered yourself from guilt.” Ezekiel 3: 18-21 Amplified.


[185] Regardless of the Scofield notes to the contrary, the word and common sense tells us that a man cannot intentionally engage in evil and expect eternal life with a just God. Instead, the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:22-23 should be taken to heart: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”


[186] M. Scott Peck, M.D. “People of the Lie, The Hope for Healing Human Evil,” Simon & Schuster, New York, 1983, at page 177.


[187] Ibid. at page 218.


[188] Ibid. at page 177.


[189] Ibid at page 124.

[190] Ibid. pp. 124-125.




Read and or make comments about this article on our message board


Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.



Send a letter
to the editor
about this article



This essay, Bloodguilty Churches

by Katherine Yurica
is now available with new material
in paperback at
Just click on the title
in the box below.





Learn how you can become
eligible for
discounts on this book.




Related Articles:


The Congressional Handbook

The Madness of George W. Bush




Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright © 2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.