What's wrong with the following statement?

According to the UNHCR News Service, the lack of a political solution to the sectarian deadlock in Iraq is the primary cause of the growing number of refugees from the war-torn country.

"In Iraq, with the sectarian divide and the lack of a comprehensive political solution, the number of internally displaced rose from 1.8 million at the start of the year to close to 2.4 million by the end of 2007,"

The problem with it is that it doesn't place the blame squarely at the feet of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and all the neocons who ran, and still run, the Bush/Cheney administration. It isn't a lack of a political solution to some sectarian deadlock. That's propaganda for the gullible and just a talking point being thrown out into the public arena. It's the military occupation by the U.S. that's the problem.

Everywhere we look that there is a huge refugee problem, with the exception of Darfur, we find the blame lies with Bush/Cheney.

Afghanistan didn't need to be torn up the way it has been. We all know that it's for the long-term sake of an oil pipeline and other selfish desires of the plutocrats. The Taliban was talking. Sure, they treat women poorly; however, with the right approach, their whole culture in that regard could have been changed. As it is, the U.S. has done little for women's rights in Afghanistan while it has actually strengthened war lords and gangsters. The U.S. tries to blame the Taliban and al Qaeda for the heroin upsurge, but the Taliban had greatly reduced that trade. Now it's way up again thanks to Bush/Cheney and the neocons. That was one of the reasons the neocons invaded Afghanistan: To get the heroin flowing again through Turkey and into Europe. The plutocrats make billions laundering the money. They also keep down the masses with it too. It's a method to devour souls.

Iraq is a story everyone knows, but Somalia is all but ignored. However, there too, the U.S. has been directly responsible for massive killings (mass murder really). Somalia was enjoying a bit of structure and safety and security albeit under strict Muslims. There too, they could have been worked with and brought along. However, that's not what Bush/Cheney and the neocons want. They want destabilization so they and their direct offspring can come to dominate. It's sheer evil.

I'm not for Islam, but we have to face the facts that what Bush and Cheney bring to people is for the most part worse.

What we all need to be for is the Golden Rule. That's the message to Islam. That's what the Muslims need to consider. They need to be taught the meaning of the New Commandment of Jesus to love as one. They can't hear that though over the despicable violence of Bush/Cheney and the neocons and Likudniks. That's what the neocons want too. The last thing they want is the message of Jesus. If they wanted it, they be different, wouldn't they?

UN: Iraq conflict exacerbates unprecedented refugee flows
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates 67 million displaced people worldwide in 2007, a result of war, poverty, and climate change.
By Liam Stack
posted June 18, 2008 at 10:18 am EDT

The number of refugees and internally displaced people swelled to 67 million in 2007, according to a report released Tuesday by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Long-running conflicts, including the war in Iraq, have figured in the unprecedented number of refugees.

Of those 67 million, UNHCR provides relief and services to 11.4 million refugees and 26 million internally displaced persons (IDPs). The remainder are Palestinian refugees cared for by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other displaced persons not covered by the UNHCR.
Afghanistan and Iraq were identified as the two leading countries of origin for cross-border refugees. Afghans made up 27 percent of the total refugee population, with almost 3.1 million living in Iran and Pakistan. Iraqis were the second largest group, with 2.3 million living outside the country. Of those, 2 million live in Jordan and Syria.

According to the UNHCR News Service, the lack of a political solution to the sectarian deadlock in Iraq is the primary cause of the growing number of refugees from the war-torn country.

"In Iraq, with the sectarian divide and the lack of a comprehensive political solution, the number of internally displaced rose from 1.8 million at the start of the year to close to 2.4 million by the end of 2007," the report says, adding that other increases or new displacement situations were also reported in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Chad, Sri Lanka and Yemen.

The UN also expressed concern for large numbers of refugees from other troubled parts of the world, including 457,000 from Somalia, 523,000 from Sudan and 552,000 from Colombia, which it describes as being in a "refugee-like situation."
The last time so many people were on the move in the Middle East was in 1948 in the aftermath of the war which led to the creation of the state of Israel. We are still living with the consequences of that refugee crisis.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.