Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Worldwide Attack Matrix is something we mentioned in the main body of the work. Bush-43 authorized it just four days after 9-11. It's a plan for attacking entities all over the globe. The object is destabilization. The CIA came up with it, but the Pentagon took over and has run with it. The Pentagon took over, because the Pentagon isn't required under the law to report to the Congress in the way the CIA is.
In the wake of the Vietnam War, Congress held many hearings about executive-branch abuses. Congress put into place a number of requirements so that Congress could at least attempt some oversight of what various administrations do. The neocons hated this, which led, for one, to the Iran-Contra debacle of the Ronal Reagan administration. Iran-Contra was Reagan's way of skirting the law, a favorite Republican policy.
Well, before Donald Rumsfeld was ceremonially removed from his position as secretary of the Department of Defense, he sent covert teams all over the globe to stir up trouble. One such glaring example that has hardly been a blip on the radar screens of the mainstream media concerns Ethiopia and Somalia.
Somalia has had an extremely weak or nonexistent government since the US left in 1993 after the Black Hawk helicopters were downed in Mogadishu, Somalia. The Muslims (Council of Islamic Courts or Islamic Courts Union) have been slowly attempting to bring some law and order to Mogadishu. They've had a great deal of success, only it is sharia (Islamic law) success, if you can call that success. It has been reported that places that used to be killing zones become relatively safe places to walk about. Of course, the US hates to see that form of stability, Islam being an arch enemy of so-called Christian, laissez-faire capitalism.
Therefore, the Bush-43 administration started out by covertly supporting the dictator prime minister, Meles Zenawi, of Ethiopia against the Salafi Muslims who had moved into help other Muslims come to control much of Somalia. Rumsfeld sent US troops to advise and supply the Ethiopians.
The Salafi are much stricter than the Somalia are accustomed to concerning Islamic observance. The Salafi came to install sharia. That's not good, but the US is backing a dictatorship where the elections were rigged and the opposition made voiceless in the parliament. In Ethiopia, the ruling party declared that nothing could be discussed in parliament without a majority okay. Also, dozens of unarmed demonstrators, some say up to forty including children, were shot in their heads even multiple times by military police snipers. That's the government the US is backing with troop advisors and military equipment and covert funding of course.
Back in the early 1990's, Somalia was suffering hunger. The UN and US went in to ease the suffering. It was right. The problem was when it turned into a military operation that wasn't sensitive to the history and culture of the area. It is ever so, the blunt instrument. The locals turned against the UN on account of Pakistani errors in reaction to clan warlordism and against US for its reaction to the clan's attack on the Pakistani-UN forces. The US slaughtered clan members (Habar Gidir) who were in fact meeting July 12, 1993, to work out a way to better deal with the UN aid mission, etc. They murdered some fifty clan elders who were meeting to try to peacefully solve Somalia's problems. Others were murdered and injured as well, including women. That did it. That pushed the whole clan, the most powerful extended family in the area, against the US.
Was it really stupid of the US military, intentional, or both?
Of course, al Qaeda takes credit for being involved in stirring up trouble too. They claim to have been supplying the very warlord/general (Mohamed Farrah Aidid) the elders had decided to meet about, among other issues. No doubt, al Qaeda was involved at some level. They had money and were free to travel.
The US withdrew from Somalia after the famous Black Hawk Down event and Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. This recent use of Ethiopia as a proxy starting in 2006 is just a continuation of that same war—the war between Islam and the West (false Christianity, false Zionism, the global oligarchy/money controllers).
Now, as we have said time and again, we don't agree with Mohammed. We don't, therefore, agree with the Islamic Courts Council of Somalia and its application of sharia. Also though, we don't though agree with any form of coercion against any Muslim.
So now, as of Tuesday, January 02, 2007, the Islamic Courts Council has been pushed out to the fringes in Somalia by Ethiopian troops and the warlords are moving back in. So people will be able to go to the movies again, but the streets will be dangerous places to walk to get there.
The Bush-43 administration doesn't share our Christian view. George W. Bush is content to get into bed with Zenawi, his proxy, as what Bush sees as a way of widening the war. This is something that neither Christ nor his real Church condone.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Rumsfeld is gone. What will happen to the Worldwide Attack Matrix ? What will happen with the Special Forces troops (military liaison elements, MLE's)? Well, it is now simply an opportunity for the CIA to attempt to reassert itself. It's also an opportunity for the State Department. Don't be fooled by the infighting though. The movement toward consolidation is still gaining steam. That will continue so long as the loyal opposition fears doing something along the lines of Frank Church or Sam Ervin.
We've discussed Frank Church in the main body of this work. Sam Ervin was the US Senator who headed up the Ervin Committee. He was a mild states'-rights advocate and more than a bit of a Democratic libertarian. His famous committee investigated the Watergate cover-up, which led to president Richard Nixon's resignation. Ervin was also instrumental in exposing illegal Pentagon spying on US citizens.
Well, without people the likes of Church and Ervin, the Democrats won't rise to the mundane occasion. They'll allow the Pentagon and CIA and the rest of the self-styled intelligence and military and paramilitary outfits to stir up trouble all over the globe.
That's what they do. That's what they're there for. All they do is make the world supposedly safe for the economical imperialism by the globalization oligarchy (gangsters).
They are everywhere. They are in so many places doing so many secret and semisecret things that they are stepping on each others toes in the dark. I mean the CIA and the Pentagon, etc., are bumping into each other because they cannot find a way of revealing to each other in advance what they plan to do. They don't want to risk the leaks, and they aren't exactly on the same team.
Anyone can see them in Bolivia stirring up the racist reactionaries there (the Santa Cruz separatists) against the populists movement of the people.
Evo Morales is walking the tightrope. He doesn't want to appear to be so radically egalitarian as to bring on invasion from the US.
Anyone can also see the CIA/Pentagon in Somalia stirring up the Ethiopians against the movement toward fundamentalist Islam and sharia. Those are only the obvious places.
We see them in Iran prompting student protests. They don't take much encouraging. They have valid points. They also are advocating Western style decadence that won't serve anyone. We see the CIA and Pentagon in the jungles of Columbia directing wars against the peasants.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Now we see that the US sent in a gun ship and murdered a bunch of innocent Somali nomads sitting around campfires.
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)