Arianna Huffington, of The Huffington Post, wrote about it in a post entitled, "Dept. of Misdirection: With Iraq a Disaster, GOP Goes Crazy Over a Newspaper Ad."
This ad has struck a nerve or it is much ado about nothing or both. The controversy certainly is an attempt to divert attention from the other points raised in the ad. It's backfired on the Republicans though, because the ad has received much more attention now than it would have had the conservative-Republican warmongers not reacted so.
What does General "Betray Us" mean? Obviously, and the conservative Republicans know this, it means he has betrayed his duty ultimately to do what is best for the common people of the U.S. rather than the power brokers' bidding. General Petraeus is to have pledged his allegiance to the whole people of America and not to any group of power brokers. This is an argument over spirits. Of course, Petraeus doesn't agree with the perspective of the MoveOn people. Besides, he's gaming the system, which he does on automatic pilot now that he's been at it so long. He's a politician first and a soldier a distant second. Everything is perception, only people such as those at MoveOn are networked in now with the Internet and computers. They can fight back quickly and with a huge reservoir of data and sources to back them up.
It isn't as easy as it used to be for people such as Petraeus when the common people at home had only their local newspaper to inform them. If one wanted what MoveOn can produce in a few days at most (maybe only hours and getting shorter all the time), one would have had to spend weeks or even months in the archives in a distant, large city or university. Then it would take weeks to get the information out to the people (those who could read).
Anyway, it's a matter of perspective as to whether or not one views Petraeus as a betrayer or not. The Real Liberal Christian Church doesn't consider him our betrayer, because we never considered him on our side. How can anyone do what is best for the common people when one is a top military general? War and doing what is best are incongruous.
We understand MoveOn's point; however, its misguided. It misses the reality that the U.S. is divided and MoveOn is a tool for keeping alive the falsehood of unity. MoveOn is part of the system of making uniformity under evil selfishness seem as if it is divided. The reality is that the people are divided but between the selfish versus those who want to end all the selfishness. They are the ones without a voice, because they are marginalized, ostracize, persecuted, and even murdered by both Republicans and Democrats.
Is MoveOn a lesser evil relative to the Republican neocons? Yes. However, being a lesser evil is not good enough. MoveOn isn't promoting the ultimate solution, which is small-c communism (small-c because it has no part in Marx's call for violent revolution or any coercion for that matter). It's the New Commandment: The real-Christian Commons.
No, MoveOn is a small step to the false-left of the Democratic Leadership Council and Blue Dogs. It's a tool of the capitalists—duped.
See other reactions around the blogosphere:
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)