Monday, December 11, 2006
Just as with Iran, the nation's leader, general Abdul Karim Qassim, said that the resources under the ground in Iraq belong to the people of the nation and the profits from those resources, in that case oil, should go to benefit those people. After the forced resignation (coup) and assassination of the Hashemite king Faisal II of Iraq, Qassim freed the political prisoners, instigated egalitarian civil rights, undertook agrarian reform, and provided housing, etc. The greedy capitalists in the US wouldn't stand for such developments.
In 1959, Saddam Hussein was part of a CIA assassination attempt against Qassim. Saddam was shot, but the CIA and others got him out of the area and into his home town of Tikrit, Iraq. The CIA then trained him in Lebanon and moved him to Egypt.
The Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Their president turned on them, and Saddam was imprisoned in Iraq from 1964 until 1967 when he escaped. In 1968, the president, Abdul Rahman Arif, was overthrown, and Saddam became deputy to the new president.
The CIA wanted Saddam to trade oil only in US dollars and deal only with US corporations for all of Iraq's major projects. He refused.
Saddam nationalized the oil industry, instigated free education, nearly eliminated illiteracy, instigated socialized medicine, subsidized the farmers, continued the agrarian reforms of redistributing land and establishing farm co-ops, and electrified much of the country, all this before being declare the leader of Iraq.
It sounds like the direction Qassim was headed in to begin with.
Saddam force the president out when it appeared Saddam might otherwise be marginalized by a merger of Iraq and Syria, also a Ba'athist country. In 1979, he immediately upon taking control, he had twenty-two Ba'ath Party leaders tried and executed for disloyalty in a Stalin-like purge. We in the West have never been made privy to the details of the charges and the evidence concerning them. We have only been fed the information about Saddam's alleged fascination with Stalin's methods. It is true that Saddam deliberately used the cult-of-personality methods of the typical Communist leadership. He wasn't a Communist however. He had actually fought against Iraq becoming too close to Russia.
He continued giving women higher positions and didn't use sharia.
Then the Shah of Iran was overthrown and war broke out between Iraq and Iran with the US more than meddling on both sides. In the main body of this work, we've written fairly extensively about US duplicity, so we won't rehash it here.
The CIA tried to assassinate him, but his security was too good, what with his body doubles, etc. He had been trained in CIA tactics after all. So, they, the US under Bush-41, invaded Iraq. They winked at him when he attacked Kuwait, and then turned on him with lies about incubators and babies being dashed on the floor.
However, they didn't want to go all the way in, because that would be too destabilizing. So, they contained him and put the economic squeeze (sanctions) on and blockaded his country. Then they tried to get him to agree to the economic subordination again, but he wouldn't accept.
The points we just made in this chapter or entry so far are essentially those made by John Perkins in 2006, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
John talks about capitalist corporations being transformed into good citizens from the pressure to do the right things that can be brought to bear upon them by organized activists. He advocates for democratic capitalist corporations. He doesn't see the hypocrisy in that. A non-profit corporations, employee-owned, based upon participatory democracy within, that has the whole community's interest at heart, is the right direction. However, such entities within the capitalist system under the US constitutional form of government remain under coercive law and remain subject to forced taxes. These things are anti-Christ.
John glories in particular past violence such as the American Revolution and the war against Nazism. He doesn't, as of this writing, believe that the old wine skin of the US Constitution represents a problem.
Well, there are many, many well-intentioned people who have actually thought things through unselfishly in their own minds who haven't been exposed to, or challenged enough by, the real message of Jesus Christ.
We've been down Thomas Jefferson's path and Tom Paine's path. They compromised with the Alexander Hamiltons and the John Adams of the world. They did that, because the philosophies of Jefferson and Paine weren't good enough—better in many ways than Hamilton's and Adam's, et al., but still not good enough.
No, we can look backwards to the authors of the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution for the light. That light is darkness. The real light is divine, perfect, peaceful, always. That real peace cannot be found in the founding fathers of the United States. They didn't have it. They didn't offer it. They didn't preach it or bring it forth.
So, as much as John Perkins gives a good introduction concerning the despicable tactics of the Empire, and he does, his prescription thereafter is short. It's too far from the kingdom. We know it. We want John to come to see it too.
John is accused of being a fake based upon his lack of specifics and his flat written delivery. We aren't saying the accusations are wrong. The vehement critics though have not grilled Perkins for verifiable specifics or checked his background, etc., to substantiate their allegations.
He claims that both Jaime RoldÃ³s of Ecuador and Omar Torrijos of Panama were assassinated by CIA operatives who brought down their airplanes close to the time Ronald Reagan took office. Both Roldos and Torrijos had instigated wide-ranging social and economic reforms that the global, gangster oligarchy and empire hated.
John exposes the methods used by the mundane new world order to subjugate the world under the economical imperialism of the oligarchs who control the corporations. He exposes the methods of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to drive nations into debt on loans designed to benefit the corporations and not the people. The corporations are, as John has said, earmarked in such loan deals for the infrastructure development of the impoverished nations. The infrastructure that is developed, however, benefits the resource raping of the given nation and not the people.
It's a racket. The oligarchy consists of racketeers.
Also, make no mistake about it. There is one person in particular who has the most power in this world, and it isn't the president of the United States. That one person is hiding, but he knows who he is. He knows that he epitomizes Antichrist. Those who are the very closest to him know too. They don't dare say it publicly though. It is the name that cannot be spoken in such a context.
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)