First, "supporting the troops" and being "tough on terrorism" are political covers (smoke screens) for imperialism. The Democrats who vote for unconstitutional surveillance statutes are really knowingly being a part of the industrial complex (Big Business) exploiting the world, stealing the Iraqi's oil for instance.
Second, these unconstitutional surveillance provisions open the door to greater and greater secret, untraceable, domestic political abuses. The premise behind the US Constitution is that you can't trust anyone: That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, we don't subscribe to that, since God is absolutely powerful and yet absolutely trustworthy; however, God is righteousness by definition, and the George W. Bush neocons are openly Machiavellian, meaning openly liars. They wink at their followers who wink back. They want total information awareness for the sake of total control, power, and wealth. They want to be served by obedient servants who are locked into a system so tight that there is zero room to rebel no matter how repugnantly the rulers behave.
These new rules will just have to be revised after the damage surfaces. Every thinking person knows it.
Third, real Manichaeism does not apply. There really is a good versus evil battle going on. It really is light versus darkness. The light is never justified in using dark arts, however. Using dark arts in the name of the light is evil duping the gullible and naÃ¯ve.
Jesus warned us that we are to be as wise as the serpent. He was. He was, in fact, wiser— much wiser.
The only proper way to use Manichaeism as analogous to what George W. Bush and his administration have done is by stating that they have twisted the battle so as to put dark for light. Only the grossly duped will fail to see how George W. Bush is antichrist.
It is not wrong to see the world in terms of good versus evil. That is exactly what is going on. The question is what is good versus what is evil. The answer is selfishness is evil.
Now, the Bushites, as they are called, will say that the troops are sacrificing their lives for the whole that is the country. However, they sacrifice themselves for the sake of the selfish oligarchs and the system of greed set up by those oligarchs' forbearers.
On the other hand, to sacrifice for the ultimate wholeness is no sacrifice, since the ultimate goodness (God) will never truly abandon any good part of itself. This is why Jesus sacrificed on the cross, but was never forsaken by God.
Jesus allowed himself to be tortured and killed by the Bushites of the day so Jesus could set the example of pacifism to save the souls of his worthy followers who put love (the love of the righteous potential in each other: God) over narcissistic love (far away from God).
The Democrats in office are afraid that if they vote against these measures and there is another so-called terrorist attack on the US, regardless of whether or not it is a false-flag operation as was 9-11, that they, the Democrats, will be run out of office for not having done enough to compromise the civil liberties and protections of the citizens for the sake of security and safety. That view is cowardly in the extreme.
What they should be doing is investigating 9-11. They should be pulling out all the stops to follow every lead to exhaustion.
They should not be doing that in the spirit of "got ya" but rather for the sake of educating themselves and the people about how evil (selfishness) has corrupted everything. They should do that so that the people will see to choose unselfishness as the path to redemption.
The way to beat terrorism is to be good, which means being as Christlike as possible in all things. The government of the people must be Christlike. Each citizen must be Christlike. That's the path to salvation. That and only that will save the world.
As for Obama, he says he'd talk with all the so-called enemies identified as such by the insane neocons; however, he turns around and says he'd increase the military budget and order unilateral attacks on Pakistani soil. It is thoroughly inconsistent. He is not a good choice for head steward and shepherd. (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are not good choices either. Certainly, none of the Republican candidates would make a wise choice.)
The US Military is a drain on the world. It steals the bread out of the mouths of the starving children around the globe.
Also, the so-called terrorists are people who hate US foreign policy and fall to militant temptations.
Yes, there are evil people out to attack the US; however, they are out to attack the US because of the evil people behind, therefore, misguided US foreign policy and practices. The US largely and correctly is seen from the outside as made up of many good-hearted people being led by gangsters.
Of course, there are gangsters who engage in gang warfare for territory. That's what worldly empire building is all about. The Wahhabists are evil empire builders too.
Therefore, the people must understand that the real choice is not and never has been between the Bushites (false Zionists and false Christians) on one hand and the Wahhabists and other Muslims on the other. The real choice is between both the Bushites and Muslims on one hand and the real Christians on the other.
Do you see that?
Let's set this debate straight. Let's put light for light and dark for dark for once. Let's define the terms from the beginning. Only then will we find consistency. Otherwise, we will be forever mired in hypocrisy and apostasy and doom each of which is a synonym of the other.
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)