This person, John Yoo, is still teaching law school. Why? What kind of law is he teaching: Nazi law as legitimate?
Conyers: Could the president order a suspect buried alive?
Yoo: Uh, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I've ever given advice that the president could order someone buried alive...
Conyers: I didn't ask you if you ever gave him advice. I asked if you thought the President could order a suspect buried alive.
Yoo: Well Chairman, my view right now is that I don't think a president, no American president, would ever have to order that or feel it necessary to order that.
Conyers: I think we understand the games that are being played.
Source: TPM Muckraker | Talking Points Memo | Conyers to Yoo: Could President Order Suspect Buried Alive? by Kate Klonick. June 26, 2008.
Let me answer the question. No, the president of the U.S. does not have the legal authority to order someone to be buried alive. Of course, we know exactly what Conyers meant by the question. He meant could the president order some so-called enemy combatant to be taken and summarily buried alive. It doesn't matter here whether or not the person is guilty either. Conyers is asking about the limits of raw presidential power.
Let me further say that if the president assumes such power, is allowed to assume such power, has assumed such power, then the United States has regressed to the time of Caligula and probably lower because they assassinated Caligula and were not punished for it but rather named the new Caesar.
Of course, assassination is evil and we openly state here that we don't advocate it but rather stand firmly against any such act. Killing is killing. It is antichrist. It is wrong when George W. Bush does it, and it would be wrong for anyone to even consider killing Bush in office or after leaving office. It would be wrong to inflict the death penalty even if he were found guilty of war crimes in federal court.
Having John Yoo step down as a law-school instructor is not punishing him. It is not judging or condemning him. It is simply changing a shepherd of the students that they be less led astray. It would be better that none be led astray at all, but it is within the purview of the secular system to choose that he step down or remove him. John Yoo's teaching is bringing Hell to Earth. He has helped turn the nation to radical evil. He needs to turn the other way, repent, and atone. This is a good thing to tell him. It harms him in no way. If he sincerely repents, then he ought not be viewed as a heathen in the sense Jesus used the term.
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)