Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is seeking his party's presidential nomination, said the Bush administration's Iraq policy has made America more vulnerable to attack, and has weakened the country's position in pressing the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to close down terrorist training camps.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act," Mr. Obama said today, "we will."

In the second major foreign policy address of his campaign, Mr. Obama outlined a series of proposals intended to fight global terrorism, including a plan to send at least two additional brigades of American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce counterterrorism operations there. At the same time, he said, he also would increase nonmilitary aid to that country by $1 billion.

Mr. Obama, who is seeking to establish his foreign policy credentials in the wide field of presidential candidates, delivered a harsh rebuke of the administration's strategy in Iraq. But the blame, he said, goes far beyond President Bush.

"Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the president the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day," Mr. Obama said. "With that vote, Congress became coauthor of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out."

Mr. Obama, who had not yet been elected to the Senate at the time of the war authorization vote in 2002, is working to persuade Democratic primary voters that he has strong judgment in the foreign policy arena. Other candidates have questioned whether he has the experience a president needs.

Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democrat of New York, and Mr. Obama traded heated remarks about the wisdom of meeting with hostile dictators without preconditions in pursuit of peace. Mr. Obama said that he would, while Mrs. Clinton said she would not, a distinction that Mr. Obama has seized upon to show that he is a candidate of change.

"It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action," Mr. Obama said. "It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom — that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear."

The Clinton campaign did not offer a response to Mr. Obama's address today, which was delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Mr. Obama did not mention Mrs. Clinton by name in his 35-minute speech, but he alluded to their disagreement several times.

"The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work," Mr. Obama said. "Go down the list of countries we've ignored, and see how successful that strategy has been."

The New York Times

Originally from legitgov on August 2, 2007, 4:27am


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.