Petraeus has read what Smedley Butler said and wrote long ago hasn't he?
Consider what US Marine Major General Smedley Butler said as far back as 1935 as follows:
I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service in the country's most agile military force, the Marines. I served in all ranks from second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
Thus I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers and Co. in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
David says he's not interested in holding public office. Someone had written suggesting that behind the scenes he had at the very least hinted at running. Well, people lie on many sides of many issues. Perhaps he never even hinted at it. Regardless, we must deal with what Petraeus has openly said.
He has said that he has taken the oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and that it calls for civil authority over the military, so he follows orders given by George W. Bush. However, doesn't he consider whether or not those orders are constitutional? Doesn't he bother with the degree to which those orders are consistent with both the letter and spirit of the law? He picks and chooses what he claims is lawful in a way that allows wars based upon blatant lies. None of the reasons George W. Bush gave to the American people for going to war against Iraq were true. He has only shifted his reasons since then in an attempt to remove his responsibility for his huge crimes. Yet, Petraeus does Bush's bidding. Frankly, that's illegal. He's violating the law he swore to uphold. The only militarists who have done the right thing vis-Ã -vis the U.S. Constitution are those who have refused to do Bush's bidding and have refused his orders as being unlawful.
The Constitution was written under the spirit that the common people are the ultimate authority and that whenever anyone usurps that, the common people have the right to overthrow the usurper(s). Does Petraeus side with the people or not? Has George W. Bush crossed the line or not? Well, of course, George W. Bush has crossed the line and should be constitutionally, non-violently "overthrown," which means he should be legally impeached under the U.S. Constitution. Of course, the constitution and the Declaration of Independence say nothing about non-violently. I add that as a Christian tenet. People shouldn't follow him regardless. Jesus would not and does not. Under no circumstances should he be assassinated the way they assassinated John F. Kennedy or in any other manner. Killing is wrong.
The overthrow of the government of the United States is only illegal and unconstitutional when those calling themselves the legitimate government are serving the people rather than the elites against the people. That's the spirit in which the United States was ostensibly formed. Of course, those in the know know that elitists duped the common people into fighting and dying for the sake of the private estates of the elites. Nevertheless, the law still truly stands that the government is derived from the just consent of the people and that the people didn't give their consent but were robbed by the elites who call themselves neocons and who cheated in the elections for George W. Bush and in other things and who have not been held responsible or to account and who have not been completely removed from office. The law requires otherwise though. By law, they all should have been removed long ago. However, that mundane law has been ignored.
The reason for all of this, which is all terrible, is that the United States and the whole world is suffering from a severe case of split personality. The spirit of human kind when taken in general is fickle. It is it hypocritical — inconsistent. Jesus showed this, but people choose to ignore him to their ultimate peril and the peril of their posterity.
A good example of this is the recent so-called liberal complaint against John McCain that McCain doesn't support the New G.I. Bill. Now that bill would give those who are currently in the military the benefit of a free college education in return for their having enlisted in the military. However, where's the consistency in this so-called liberal position? The enlistees are doing the bidding of the elitists. Without such enlistees, without anyone willing to maim and kill for the elites and to risk their lives for the perpetuation of the lies of the elites, the elitists would fall. Why do so-called liberals want to reward such enlistees with benefits not granted to those who are smart enough and honorable enough, true enough, not to serve the elites but rather to stand up openly to call out the lies of the elitists that have taken the nation and the world down further into Hell?
The reason of course is that the so-called liberals aren't truly liberal. The truly liberal soul is for doing no harm but only good. War is harmful always. Nothing good comes of it. It engenders more of itself. It is always the wrong message, lesson, and method. It lowers only. It is always false salvation. It is always short-sighted. If everyone were a pacifist, consider how the world would be.
If everyone were to stop littering, there would be no litter. It makes no sense to dump litter on litterers, but rather to set the right example and show them how it is the path to a higher quality of existence for all.
Let the spirit of vengeance deal with the evil spirits. Don't add to offenses. There is more than enough evil without adding to it. That's what Jesus taught, and he was still is right.
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)