Sunday, December 10, 2006
I read the Report. It emphasizes over and over that there is no plan that could guarantee success in the region. It discusses the situation in a very aloof manner. It is far from the people, clinical, cold, unfeeling. Mostly it is arrogant. I make these observations before seeing anyone else's characterizations.
It is more of same old America the empire with the right to draw the boundaries of nations.
It addresses none of the complaints or grievances of the insurgents or al Qaeda. It mentions that Palestine was key though. It doesn't though speak any truth to the Israelis. It doesn't do any soul searching or reflecting as America.
No, the Iraq Study Group's Report won't solve a thing. In fact, it will prolong the error.
What are they saying behind closed doors? Are they calling for a dictatorship? They seem to know that the only way the US will be able to draw down troops while the US remain hegemonic is via a strongman in Iraq, a ruthless person backed up by a hard security system. Isn't that what they had before?
No, they don't need that.
Where's the Christianity in the Report? I saw none. Are they all atheists?
Of course they wouldn't come across as Christians, because that would be counter-productive in their eyes. It would be generous, beneficent, healing, enlightening, disarming, and all the rest of the good. They don't want that. There's no money in it.
The US oil companies must control Iraq's oil or the US economy will fall and the petrodollar will be replaced by the Euro as the global oil-currency. The oilman and retread from the corrupt Reagan administration, James Baker, who chaired the Study Group, knows this full well. His report offers many excuses for dominating Iraqi oil.
The panel is loaded with people being rewarded for past services rendered to the global Oligarchy. Lee Hamilton can always be counted upon to turn in a report that satisfies the power elite. He'll do just enough complaining—not too hot, not to cold.
Baker is all money, mostly oil. I won't go down the whole list, but Sandra Day O'Connor, of course, was one of the so-called justices on the Supreme Court who stopped the recount in Florida when it was known that Gore was going to come out on top despite the tens of thousands of Gore voters illegally rejected. At least they didn't shoot Gore in the head, unlike John Kennedy, Sr. They have though killed many hundreds of thousands in Iraq and elsewhere even as they have ignored the children of the world starving to death every day and night.
Rather than Baker's proposal, we should head down the right path.
The alternative is a crash program for clean, sustainable alternative-energy on the order of the Manhattan Project times one hundred, only for peace.
The nation should disarm and demilitarize.
It should also graduate to a debt-free currency. The currency should belong to the people, collectively.
The nation should move to a giving and sharing economy, good stewardship, and good shepherding.
The people should become each other's unselfish servants.
Greed, violence, and depravity should be relegated to the past.
All the people should grow in their faith in God and righteousness. The collective spirit of righteousness can do away with pain, suffering, punishment, disease, death, and falsehood. The essence of evil should be put out of existence.
Unlike the Iraq Study Group's Plan, its Report, the right plan comes with a guarantee of success. It doesn't take political will of the kind Baker imagines. It takes submission to the will of God, which is the will of the people who become one with God, as Jesus said.
That is where the world will end up.
It should not go unnoticed that former president Jimmy Carter has come out strong for revisiting the entire policy concerning the Middle East and Palestine in particular. Also, even outgoing prime minister Tony Blair called for a regional summit on the same subjects, which jibes with Carter and the Iraq Study Group to some extent.
Blair is trying to save what little is left of his legacy especially now that he sees that he's decidedly on the outs with the majority of Americans for having been such a lapdog to George W. Bush who in turn came to heel when Ariel Sharon pulled his purse strings and the neocons in the Bush administration screamed in Bush's ears along with the false-Zionist self-styled Christians.
Voices such as Carter's though had not been being heard at all in the mainstream media until very recently. The change of course is due to the pendulum swinging against the warmongers. Thank God.
Rumsfeld is out. Bolton is out. Some neocons have run for cover.
The Brits have said they are going to start pulling out of Iraq. It won't be long before there is no coalition faÃ§ade left.
The changes within the evangelical community concerning good stewardship of the environment and the renewing interest in that group to feeding the starving will spillover into peacemaking as well.
Real Christianity is going to come out more and more leading up to the time of separation of good and evil.
Nevertheless, there are many hawks in the Democratic Party. They are the carryovers from the Democratic Cold Warriors of the 1950's and 60's. There isn't a real Christian in the bunch.
Right now the Israeli Lobby, called the Jewish Lobby by the Israelis, supply sixty percent of the financing of the Democratic Party and thirty-five percent of the Republicans. They buy American foreign policy. They buy the use of the US military. The US is as a mercenary for hire by Israel or really as the false-Zionists in Israel say, the Jews.
God sees this and hates it. Don't say you weren't warned.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
So now we've heard Bush-43's new Iraq strategy: Shiites mostly, to start, and US troops mixed together to clear and hold Baghdad, house-to-house of both Shiites and Sunnis. Move more Sunnis into the mixed army and police. Increase US troop levels. Attack Iran and Syria economically and militarily under pretexts and false-flag operations for Israel and mostly for oil hegemony. Send not so subtle messages to the other regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and others, to get in line with the US policy or face consequences down the line.
This clear-and-hold idea is impossible. There are not enough US troops and even if there were, they wouldn't know how to do it. The truth is that to win a war in the mundane sense, the so-called victor must be prepared to kill everyone. The people of the US aren't depraved enough right now to stand for that even via a huge saturation bombing or nuclear bomb or bombs or ostensible arm-length operation. Also, the Iraqis will not turn into a dictatorial police force under US domination. They won't be compliant. Not now, not since they have seen others with stand the Israelis in Palestine and Lebanon. The US has been talking about a seventy year war. Well, that's generational on both sides. The great-grand children of the current home-grown insurgents in Iraq would still be fighting US domination by whatever means possible, and US competitors would be feeding them to bleed the US. The resistance is willing to live in misery just not to give in. It is a contest of wills.
We cannot trust George W. Bush.
For years now, the US and Israel has been making up things about Iran, as if the truth isn't bad enough. There had been absolutely no proof given that Iran is doing any of the things alleged by the US and Israel. Even the top US general, Marine Corps general Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had admitted openly that he has zero proof. Pace isn't the only one to say there was no proof.
Then, at the end of January 2007, they claimed to have confiscated computers and documents from Iranians in Iraq that the military is saying contains proof the Iran is adding the anti-American forces in Iraq. However, they reversed themselves.
In fact, the American position on those raids [on the Iranians in Iraq] was weakened after American forces in Baghdad first announced that they would formally present evidence on illicit Iranian activity in Iraq, then pulled back amid indications that officials in Washington were not persuaded that the case was strong enough.
They have been making definitive claims to drum up war without having the evidence. It is the fraudulent lead-up to the invasion of Iraq all over again only this time it's Iran. The same people make these claims are the same people who imprison and torture people who are innocent and afforded no due process of law.
These frauds must repent and atone in earnest or go the way of the tares and goats.
How can these statements be trusted after all the lying Bush and his people have done? Can we forget the yellowcake forgery that tipped so many of the American people to war with Iraq? How can they be trusted what with the history of American governmental deception against its own people?
Despite the blatant and obvious lies, the US has convinced banks all over the place to stop doing Iranian transactions. The US plan is to starve Iran of the funds necessary to handle Iranians oil and gas industries that had been going down even before the latest US actions in the UN against Iran.
The idea is to lock down Iraq in a military dictatorship if necessary so that the US military may be freed up to go hassle Africa and Latin America and the rest of the world wherever there are strategic natural resources to dominate and to keep out of the hands of would-be superpowers—read China, India, Brazil, and a resurgent Russia just for starters and don't forget the EU, which is dominated by France and Germany and which is really a rival to the old US-UK Atlanticist domination of NATO.
Understand that the European Union could pull out of NATO. The French in particular haven't liked US domination all along.
The Middle Eastern, African, and Latin American resources, it is assumed, will support the US economy.
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)