Failing to ask how McCain can accept Bush's endorsement after Bush defended his administration's use of waterboarding
McCain said he wanted to discuss torture because "it's important" and "because I think it's what America is all about and what kind of country we are." He later added that "for the future of this country, we have to make sure that we remain a nation that does not do things that our enemies do," and reiterated, "[T]hat's a very important question about what kind of a country we are, and what kind of country we've been and what kind of country we'll be in the 21st century." Matthews did not follow up by asking how, based on what McCain had just said, he could campaign with President Bush, who, in an April 11with ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, said that he approved of senior White House officials authorizing the use of waterboarding — an interrogation tactic that has "very exquisite torture." Nor did Matthews ask McCain how he could Bush and his endorsement in March, after the president appeared to the use of waterboarding during a February 10 on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday.
BUSH: First of all, whatever we have done was legal, and whatever decision I will make will be reviewed by the Justice Department to determine whether or not the legality is there. And the reason why — there's a difference between what happened in the past and today is there's new law. And so, to answer your question, whatever we will do will be legal.
RLCC Comment: Now, that's an important point by Media Matters concerning McCain. How can he accept the endorsement, with literal, physical hugs no less, from George W. Bush when Bush has been torturing people?
How can people support McCain when that's what McCain is like? It isn't as if it doesn't matter and it's "just politics" so to speak. It totally matters that McCain doesn't severely rebuke Bush and has never called for his impeachment for all the illegal things Bush and Bush's neocons have done. That brings us to the Bush comment above.
When the Democrats were making deals with Bush for Michael Mukasey's appointment as attorney general, there was discussion about restating what was already law against torture. At that time, I said that the neocons would turn around to claim that by virtue of restating the law by new, redundant legislation, the Bush people would claim that it's now law and that there was no law before outlawing torture tactics illegally authorized by Bush and the top members of his team.
Above, you will take notice that exactly what I said would happen has happened. Bush is saying that there is now "new law." He's trying to squeeze that in to say that there was no law before. Of course though, there was law before and no amount of Bush's twisting can alter that fact. Even after he leaves office, he'll need to be held to full account.
I say that because the Democrats are obviously planning to let the clock run out without having stepped up to the task. They are so morally weak, it would be sickening were it not for the Holy Spirit holding me together even while exposing Bush's great, unrepented (so far) wickedness.
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)