The U.S. added more troops to Baghdad. Now, Hawks are saying it's been a success. U.S. military deaths are down in Baghdad. Violence in general is down. Is that due to the Surge?
Well, we know that the U.S. is paying militant Sunnis some $300 per month per head to convert from fighting an insurgency. We know the U.S. has ordered miles and miles of blast walls, some six feet high, some twelve feet high. We know that the U.S. has created many, many checkpoints and has been taking fingerprints and retinal scans. We know that the city is being segregated after it was fractured into sectarian strife. We know the U.S. undercover instigated that strife to begin with. We know the U.S. is playing sectarian and ethnic groups off each other throughout the Middle East.
Here's some in-depth coverage: "Baghdad safer, but it's a life behind walls," by Sam Dagher. The Christian Science Monitor. December 10, 2007.
Is this clearing and holding? Is the U.S. buying loyalty or just a lull covering over huge anti-Americanism? What has been the point? It has been to improve the image for the sake of the Republican Party before the upcoming Presidential election in the U.S. It has been to lockdown the whole city of Baghdad leading to the U.S. real American goal of bringing lots of oil on line via U.S. oil corporations controlling stinking contracts with the puppet regime in the making in Iraq. It has been for the sake of depriving all other powers of that oil. It has been for the sake of creating a huge forward hub of U.S. military bases in that pivotal area of the world. It has been for the sake of ringing Iran as much as possible, since the U.S. is in Afghanistan too and is planning to beef up operations there and also to move into Pakistan (whether Pakistanis like it or not).
Thanks to SUBTOPIA for the link to the article on (cited above). This site shows images of the barriers throughout Baghdad.
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)