I like the approach of the article below by William Cook. It demonstrates the sheer hypocrisy of the neocons in the U.S. Congress in both houses and on both sides of the isle.
It was posted the same day I posted this on H. CON. RES. 362:
H. CON. RES. 362; HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 362, MAY 22, 2008: AN IMMORAL, UNJUST, AND PLANNED ACT OF WAR BY U.S. NEOCONS AGAINST THE IRANIAN PEOPLE
By William Cook
Media with Conscience
Perception is often the stepchild of ignorance, especially when controlled by those with the most to gain. It is especially difficult for our Congress to perceive clearly when it grovels at the feet of its master, AIPAC. America's Knesset, servile hirelings of Israel's lobby, rush to pass yet another resolution conceived by AIPAC and authored and co-signed by its most slavish puppets, Ackerman and Ros-Lehtinen in the House and Lieberman and Bayh in the Senate, Resolutions H. Con. 362 and S. 580, the "Iran War Resolution." Virtually all Congressmen with the exception of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and all Senators, including McCain and Obama, will vote to support this resolution. Passage provides Bush with power to impose a unilateral blockade on Iran, an act, if done without UN sanction, is an act of war. This resolution, a virtual carbon copy of the resolution that has mired us in Iraq, does nothing for the security of the United States, indeed it does the opposite, but it does secure continued funding of Republicans and Democrats by AIPAC and Israel.
The wise man seeks to see through the eyes of his perceived enemy; only then will he know his perceived failures and the rationale that gives purpose to those arraigned against him. Our Congress is driven, like the horse carriage of old, with blinders that prevent vision beyond that dictated by Israel's interests, not America's. Consider the "Iran War Resolution" from the perspective of the nations that compose the United Nations General Assembly, not the Security Council that is controlled by the U.S. veto.
Let's rewrite the legislation so that it expresses the sense of the United Nations General Assembly regarding "the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital security interests of the United Nations by Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony."
Whereas Israel is NOT a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has NOT foresworn the acquisition of nuclear weapons by ratification of the NPT, and is therefore able to avoid declaration of all its nuclear activity and defy constant monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
Whereas for nearly 50 years, in clear contravention of the explicit obligations of the NPT, Israel operated a covert nuclear program until it was revealed by Mr. Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in solitary confinement for providing the world information on this deceit, and, recently, by Prime Minister Olmert and former President Jimmy Carter;
Whereas Israel continues to expand the number of illegal nuclear weapons available to its military forces, as has become evident in its most recent invasion of a neighbor in 2006, Lebanon, and continues in defiance of binding UNSC resolutions demanding suspension of all such illegal activities;
Whereas the Israeli nuclear weapons capability poses a grave threat to international peace and security by fundamentally altering and destabilizing the strategic balance in the Middle East, and severely undermining the global nonproliferation regime;
Whereas Israel's overt sponsorship of several terrorist groups, especially those aligned with the Settlers occupation in Palestine, and its close ties to the United States, demonstrates that Israel and the U.S. share their nuclear materials and technology with others;
Whereas Israel continues to develop ballistic missile technology and pursues its capability to field intercontinental ballistic missiles, a delivery system suited almost exclusively to nuclear weapons payloads;
Whereas Israeli leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Palestine and Lebanon, respected members of the United Nations;
Whereas Israel's support for its rogue terrorist group, the IDF, has enabled that group to wage war against the government and people of Lebanon and Palestine leading to the invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and its political and physical domination of Palestine;
Whereas Israel's support for its Settlers and IDF has enabled it to illegally seize control of the West Bank and Gaza and to continuously bombard and devastate Palestinian civilians with F-16s, bulldozers, tanks, and missiles;
Whereas through these efforts, Israel seeks to establish regional hegemony, threatens longstanding friends and allies of all nations in the mid-east, and endangers vital United Nations security interests; and
Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Israel: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the United Nations General Assembly that the world's international body
Declare that Israel disband all nuclear weapons capability;
Join the nations of the mid-east in signing the NPT;
Remove its troops from the occupied territory of Palestine;
Tear down the illegal wall that it has used to imprison the Palestinians;
Return all natural resources to the people of Palestine;
Pay reparation for its destruction of Lebanon;
Return occupied land to Lebanon and Syria;
Provide for the refugees illegally prevented from returning to their legitimate homes;
The above document modifies the wording of the House and Senate resolutions to indicate a totally different perspective on world affairs, one built on Justice, the requisite foundation for a lasting peace, not those of Israel alone. Considering the magnitude of the reality that exists in Israel versus Iran relative to nuclear capability alone, the absurdity, the hypocrisy, the sheer arrogance of these resolutions boggles the mind. How can the world respect a nation whose representatives avoid seeing the world from the eyes of those most impacted by the threat that Israel poses in the mid-east? How can the world understand that a nation rejects the testimony of its own CIA National Intelligence Estimate that Iran has not actively pursued nuclear weapon capability since 2003 and the evidence brought to the United Nations by the IAEA's Director, El Baradei, after nine unannounced investigations of Iran's nuclear facilities in this past year all revealing no evidence of weapon development? How can the world respect a Democracy that is led to such acts of vengeance by a small nation more invested in its own interests than those of America as Mearsheimer and Walt's report testifies.
The most evil deceit resides in the conceit of those who pretend to be a friend and achieve their end by flattery, bribery, or coercion; those who fall victim to such evil remain forever the bondslave of their Overseer. They have, in effect, surrendered their principles, their conscience, and their personal freedom to a ruthless, merciless, amoral force, willingly sacrificing in the process the people they represent. Such is the state of affairs in our spineless Congress.
William Cook, A senior editor of MWC News, is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of Tracking Deception: Bush's Mideast Policy
By this author:
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)