McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil'

I find it interesting that all of these "Pastor Problems" are arising. However, in the case of Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, he was wRIGHT! This Prejudiced Parsley Prick (note the alliteration) really is off his rocker. I find it to be strange that Obama doesn't support what Wright is saying, even though he is right, just because Obama takes what the mainstream media is feeding him without question (maybe he should pull in to focus that if the media portrayed his wife's "anti-Americanism" wrong, then maybe, just maybe, they could've gotten Wright wrong... but I guess it has to hit closer to home to actually matter). Also, Obama rejects to agree with Wright to keep up his image with the democrats that have also gotten the incorrect mainstream version of Wright's speeches. On the other hand, McCain's Pastor is completely wrong, yet McCain has not yet rejected what Parsley has said... Interesting. Maybe McCain isn't as lovey-dovey about Islam as he claims to be.

US House blocks Iraq war money, sets pullout plan.

I think this article is a good summary of how our executive branch will out-power any legislative branch power... WHICH IS WRONG! Stupid Bush.

Thoughts on Direct Action

I am convinced that the antiwar movement is at a stage in which we need to start thinking about how to use direct actions in a tactical sense.

The recent quietness of UFPJ and ANSWER due to the election season has caused a resurgence in grassroots activism, especially on college campuses, against the war. This can be seen from the recent success CAN has been having with new chapters springing up and larger and dedicated member turnouts at the 4 regional conferences. Because of this, there is a melding pot of different ideas and opinions. Ideas on how to organize and what methods of direct action to implement. Before I go on, I do want to mention that even through these organizational differences, CAN has been able to maintain a more radical (and in my opinion) comprehensive stance against the war than UFPJ or ANSWER. While CAN doesn't officially denounce the occupations of Afghanistan or Palestine and the impending wars with Iran and Pakistan, most of it's membership is dedicated to anti-imperialism which is necessary to make sure that these same wars don't start after another 40 years. That is why I believe that CAN is in a position to make a bigger difference than UFPJ or ANWER. With this massive potential for a real student antiwar movement, we need to debate the decide on the best method for direct action.


There are so many different definitions for "direct action" that it is confusing when talking to someone with a different definition than your own. For simplicity sake, I like to define "direct action" into these categories:

1) Tabling on your Quad or at an event to get your organization visible to the public. Only risk is a few angry looks and heated arguments with right-wingers.

2) Peaceful protest - this could be anything from a vigil, to a march with a designated route, to a die-in that does not disrupt the everyday. Only risk is some disgruntled looks by passer-bys.

3) Civil disobedience phase 1 - this is another form of protest. It could be a march that goes outside of it's designated area (if there was one to begin with). If the crowd is big enough and on a national scale the police may be involved, and so may police violence.

4) Direct Action phase 1 - I think this would be along the lines of stopping the flow of traffic of a major highway to something such as the RNC. While you are directly engaging in action to stop the meeting of the "warhawks," you are still not doing something to physically stop the war. This is more "active" than "passive." Being arrested is a possibility along with the possibility of some minor police violence.

5) Civil disobedience phase 2 - this is another form of protest. I think of this to be like a sit-in at a senator's office. It is peaceful, but some criticize saying that you are still "asking someone to do it for you." The 1968 DNC protest would fit this category as would other civil rights actions throughout the 60's. It maintains a forceful voice while remaining non-violent. This remains more "passive" than "active" as opposed to Direct Action phase 1. Being arrested is a plausibility along with police violence and brutality.

6) Direct Action phase 2 - This is physically stopping the war machine from working by individual or mass effort. Stopping the transportation of war materials to port to be shipped to war would be a perfect example of this. There is a possibility of being arrested along with police violence and brutality as well as possible riots.


I am not claiming this to be a complete list, or even an accurate one. This is just how I perceive the different kinds of "direct actions" to break down into. Some people consider all of these actions to be "direct actions." I'm not here to debate that, because that is a pointless discussion. However, we, as movement organizers and activists, need to figure out how best to relate to these actions and when and how to implement them. I think that all of these actions are necessary and have a time and place. The problem is to find out which is the correct choice at any given time. This is usually difficult because we are so ingrained in our movement work, that it is hard for us to put ourselves in the potential antiwar activists' shoes.


The biggest question is how should CAN relate to the RNC Protest in St. Paul in September. Because there is such a large number of people congregating all for one protest, and possibly one of the largest grassroots organized protests of the year, there is huge potential that hasn't been seen in this country for about 30-40 years.

Direct action does need a tactic. You have to consider the political environment, what are you able to accomplish with however many people show up, what you want to achieve from the action, and how your direct action will play off to others who you want to join your movement. Although, this may change due to the environment or spontaneity of the protest or political climate. The trick is to be able to recognize this when it occurs.

There is an idea that CAN should engage in Direct Action phase 1 actions to shut down streets with the intention to shut down the RNC or shut down St Paul itself. My criticism of this is that this is a big overestimation of what is physically possible for the protesters to accomplish. Even beyond that, I do not think it is politically savvy for us to engage in that kind of action right now. Most people who will read about this will be upset if the protesters took this tactic. It will give more ammunition for the right-wing, moderate, and even some liberals to think that antiwar protesters are against "freedom of speech." They will reason that even if we disagree with the Republicans, that no matter how horrible and deadly their politics, that we should allow them to convene because they have the freedom of speech. Whereas the protesters know the Republicans have the right to convene, but are making a point and are protesting the ideas behind the Republican pro-war, anti-immigration, anti-gay policies. However, this message will get completely lost to anyone who does not attend.

It is on that basis that I think we need to engage in either Civil Disobedience phase 1 and if all is going great and we have the mass support, possibly even Civil Disobedience phase 2. Civil Disobedience phase 1 would be something like having protests that go outside the designated protest "free speech zones." Civil Disobedience phase 2 would be something along the lines of having a sit-in or die-in around the entrance of the center the convention will take place in, but not physically stopping them from speaking. Imagine the message it will send if people see politicians stepping over dead bodies to get to their convention! I think this would play out much more favorably for our movement because then we will be able to be seen as the victims of police brutality (if there is any). If there is no police brutality, then we will still be able to get our message across through peaceful means.

I have no disillusion that we will be able to stop the RNC from convening or be able to stop the war from this one action. Which is why I favor taking the route which will get us the best media attention that will be more inviting for the young liberals and radicals to join. We need to build the widest movement possible while not losing our clarity on opposing the war in Iraq on a moral basis, not as a tactical failure. I do not think that direct actions that have the intention of trying to "fuck shit up" or shut down the RNC or shut down St. Paul will be productive to building this kind of antiwar movement.

peace
Steven Wyatt

CAN Midwest Conference a resounding success.

On April 18th-20th, over 150 antiwar activists from across the Midwest traveled to Iowa City, Iowa to join the Campus Antiwar Network for a Midwest Antiwar Conference. One of several regional antiwar conferences hosted by the Campus Antiwar Network this spring across the nation, the Midwest Conference helped show that the Midwest is the breadbasket for antiwar activism!

The weekend featured numerous workshops and speakers. On the morning of Saturday, April 19th, two Campus Antiwar Network members and one Iraq Veteran Against the War member spoke about the need for immediate withdrawal, one of the main demands of the Campus Antiwar Network. The rest of the day was full of workshops, ranging from activist art (“Artivism”) to the issue of Palestine.

One of the most pressing questions on the minds of Midwest activists, and antiwar activists across the nation, is the issue of direct action. With the Republican National Convention coming to Minneapolis/St-Paul in September, and the work that groups like RNC Welcoming Committee are putting into protesting the event, many antiwar activists are questioning the best tactics to use to effectively protest. This debate was manifest at the Midwest Conference, where three workshops were dedicated to talking about Direct Action and the RNC Protests. The workshops were marked by excellent, engaging debates about the definition of Direct Action and its place in the antiwar movement as a whole, as well as the tactics that the RNC Welcoming Committee and other organizations plan to use to “Crash the Convention.” Many in CAN, and unaffiliated activists, came away from the weekend with a better idea about when and where to use Direct Action, and discussion has already begun regarding CAN’s plans at the RNC protest, and to a lesser extant at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Sunday April 20th was a powerful day. 13 Midwest members of Iraq Veterans Against the War held a mini-Winter Soldier hearing during the morning. Their testimony was incredibly powerful and engaging, and was covered by numerous local and state news papers. That afternoon, the was an antiwar rally and march through Iowa City with the more than 150 antiwar activists chanting slogans such as “Whose Streets? Our Street! Whose War? Their War!” and “No Justice, No Peace! US out of the Middle East!” The march culminated in a die-in in Iowa City’s pedestrian mall, and an energetic rally.

In all, the conference was a huge success. A number of new CAN chapters are expected to form out of the event, and Midwest CAN chapters were able to form strong bonds with other antiwar organizations, such as Students for the Democratic Society.

In the past year, we have seen a huge resurgence of the Campus Antiwar Network across the nation. This conference has shown that in the Midwest, the antiwar movement is growing by the day, and shows no sign of stopping!

To close, UIUC CAN proudly presents a new CAN-specific chant, developed by Tim Kooy of Cincinnati:

"Bombs, Sanctions, Bullets they all hurt.
Rectify, we try we try -
CAMPUS ANTIWAR NETWORK!"

Torture, Revisted.

I have written about torture before, and (surprise!) my position has not changed. Torture is never defensible. The “ticking bomb” scenario is fallacious scare-mongering, and the act itself is not only morally and ethically indefensible, but both nationally and internationally illegal. Tyrants are prosecuted at The Hague for torture.

Which puts into perspective President Bush’s recent disclosure that he approved of his national security team meeting, discussing, and formulating what can only be described as a torture policy – what kinds, how many times, and how often torture was acceptable. Present at these meetings were Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Conspicuously absent: President Bush himself. His team did a good job of keeping him isolated, so that if asked under oath (not that the president would ever lower himself to be put under oath!) he could deny that he was at the meetings.

The fact that this story has not received a great deal of media play – Obama’s “elitist rhetoric” has been the major news story – stems from two causes.

The first is that the Bush media team did a good job. They released the information on a Friday afternoon – the perfect time to allow White House press releases to slip under the radar. Instant damage control, and every administration does it.

The second reason is far more insidious. The Bush Administration, in its effort to push their agenda of the Imperial (or dictatorial) Presidency – the Strong Unitary Executive, as they call it – has stated repeatedly that it should not be confined by international law, nor national law, nor checks and balances. Not in so many words of course, but by refusing to allow senior staff to testify before Congress, by using signing statements to completely undermine bills that the President signs, and by showing what can only be described of as contempt to the Congress and the American People, the Bush Administration has never stepped down.

They do the same with torture. They do not quibble whether torture is legal or not – they discuss the minutia of “Which torture IS legal? What counts as torture?” Unfortunately, the media and Congress have accepted Bush’s position that some torture is legal by engaging in the debates as he shapes them. By shaping the discourse from the outset, the Bush Administration is able to slowly turn the conversation away from the illegal nature of torture –all torture – to a legal semantics debate about what is torture, how often it can be done, and to whom.

I am reminded of a famous quote by the master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

The Bush Administration had told the big lie, and they told that lie at the outset. There was furor over it, but that died down soon enough as the next Bush lie was told, smaller this time. As more lies were told, people became more bogged down in the mass of small lies, tacitly accepting the Big Lie that underlies the entire conversation. Instead of discussing if Water Boarding is legal, we should be discussing how long Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the others will be spending in The Hague.

Which, of course, will be no time at all. America does not acknowledge the International Criminal Court for just this reason. It would prevent our officials, elected or appointed, from committing torture or genocide, or continuing an illegal occupation. And America can’t have that. It would be… Un-American.

Or so another Big Lie goes.

“Impeach the Bastards!”

Teens Protest Against Iraq War

I want to commend those of us who were out there, lying on the gross, wet, cold, and cigarette-littered street. Great job helping out the high school movement!!!

The Religious Left

There are many problems with many Republicans and conservatives in power – their lying, blatant flaunting of laws and the Constitution, the illegal invasion and occupation in Iraq… the list goes on. But one of the most egregious problems with the Right is their stranglehold on Religion.

Many on the left are agnostics, atheists, religiously apathetic, or downright hostile towards religion. In the interest of full disclosure let me state that I myself am an ex-Catholic atheists, but not hostile towards religion (except when people bastardize religion for their own purposes). Between the cold reception that many religious people receive from the Left and the lies crimes being committed by the Right, many progressive or even independent religious or spiritual people are stuck with what seems like no choice.

In the antiwar movement at UIUC, we make a real attempt to bring in Muslim students and to work closely with Muslim student associations – ASA, MSA, CAIR, and SJP. This is for quite understandable reasons: the current US hegemonic interests lie in the middle east, and the War on Terror has also led to the creation and dissemination of the inherently fallacious idea of “Islamofascism.” Arabs and Muslims in general are targeted by racial profiling at airport and border checkpoints, and attacks on Muslims continues. The hajib is routinely criticized, the Qur’an and misquoted or quoted out of context, and the religion itself has been called a religion of hate. Muslims are routinely the bad guys in TV, movies, and video games, and the mainstream media coverage helps foster negative ideas about Muslims.

For these reasons and more, we actively seek out our Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters and invite them to join us in our cause. Yet at the same time we ignore our Christian and Jewish comrades. While we send representatives to the Atheists, Agnostics, and Free Thinkers organization on campus, we don’t even look to see if there are any Christian groups on campus that might be favorable to our cause.

Let us not forget that the Christian Extremists are also reviled in the mainstream media, and rightly so. Groups like the Westboro Baptist Church (whose homepage I will not link to) and documentaries like Jesus Camp show that there are many deranged individuals out there, following a belief that is as alien to the tenants of Christianity as the views of most Islamic extremists are alien to the very nature of Islam.

This is not supposed to give support to those Evangelical Christians who believe that the Earth was created in 6 days and is only 40,000 years old, or who seriously believe that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in public schools. Nor am I giving any ground to people who claim that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath at New Orleans for the debauchery that goes on there. These Christian Extremists preach a rhetoric often just as bad as that preached by the Islamic Extremists, and often quite in line with them. These, and people less extreme, make up the Religious Right, who the Republicans have both maintained a hold on and in turn have themselves been molded by. And I say, let the Republicans have them.

However, focusing solely on the Religious Right is the narrow view of Christianity. There are many, many Progressive Christians who likely feel alienated by the Left. The fact that we do not reach out to them likely does not help at all. We in the antiwar movement must begin to make a real effort to reach out to Progressive and Leftist Christians, to make for them a safe and welcoming environment to protest the war. We may not see eye-to-eye when it comes to religion, but I think we can put that aside and focus on the more immediate problems facing us.

There is tricky situation when it comes to some Jewish people. Many in the Antiwar movement see clear parallels between the occupation of Iraq and the events occurring in Palestine. Some support the second Intifada, and call for a single state. Others call for a two state solution, but might show solidarity with Palestine. Many Jews have very strong opinions about the Israel-Palestine problem, with many supporting Israel. The problem of Palestine is not an easy one to confront, let alone solve. I take comfort in the fact that there are a growing number of Jews who support Palestine, either in a one state or two state solution, or at the very least think that Israel is approaching the problem the wrong way. But the issue of Palestine should not prevent the antiwar movement from reaching across the aisle and trying to embrace antiwar Jews as important members of the antiwar movement. It might mean toning down the pro-Palestine rhetoric during demonstrations put on with the support of Jewish organizations, which is obviously a contentious issue for some people.

There are many things the Right has claimed a monopoly on – Patriotism, the Flag, the Troops, and, yes, Religion. It is the job of the Left, especially the Antiwar Left, to reclaim these symbols, ideas, and people. Let it be OK to fly a flag at a protest, be it Iraqi, American, or upside down. Let it be OK to say, “Support the Troops: Bring them Home” as we so often do. IVAW has gone a long way towards showing people that the soldiers and vets are not the pawns of the Right, nor their property. They belong to themselves only, and can decide whom to support. Let it be OK to use the trite expression “Dissent is Patriotic” and mean both parts of the phrase, to reject the rhetoric that Patriotism is blind faith and support of the President and simply, mindless Jingoism. And let it be OK for religious people of all faiths to join the antiwar movement and find a welcoming, inviting environ in which to grow as activists. To quote two bumpersticker slogans, “Jesus wouldn’t own a gun and vote Republican” and “Who Would Jesus Torture?”

Iraq For Iraqis! Troops Out Now!