The idea behind a League of Democracies (see: "POLITICS-US: A League of Their Own," by Ali Gharib. Inter Press Service. June 10, 2008) is ostensibly to form a group of U.S. allies that aid the U.S. government in militarily intervening around the world.
What it really is, is to form a group of U.S. puppets that will fall into line when the U.S. government says it's time to intervene militarily around the world. It's to bypass the U.N. and in fact to cause the U.N. to fall for lack of U.S. funding and backing.
The neocons have come up with the idea. These are the same people who came up with invading and occupying Iraq (for the oil, for Anglo-American-Israeli Empire), to deny other nations access. These are the same people who brought the surge (mainly the militant-extremist, warmongering Kagan family).
The League would allow for only those nations that meet the neocon criteria for membership. What constitutes a democracy? Does Israel? Israel is a democracy as ancient Athens was a democracy. It is of, by, and for Jews as only those in power in Israel define "Jews." The ancient Athenians were for democracy of, by, and for the free, Athenian males. Is Gaza a democracy? They voted in elections that were freer and fairer than those in the U.S. However, they chose Hamas, which the neocons don't like, even though Israel was led by known and admitted terrorists when it came into being and thereafter.
It's all a double standard. The Kagan family is loaded with hypocrites. They are false Zionists first and foremost. They are Jewish nationalists who seek Jewish dominance over the Middle East. They are empire builders of the wrong sort of empire.
It is false Zionism, because real Zionism is peace. Jesus Christ was and is a real Zionist. His Zion is the real Zion. The Zion of Herzl is a fake.
The neocons seek to block Russia, China, and up and coming India and others from vetoing U.S. desires in the U.N. However, the U.S. has blocked the desires of the rest of the global community concerning Israel. Very few nations have ever sided with the U.S. and Israel concerning U.N. resolutions about the Palestinians. The rest of the world wants more fundamental fairness on behalf of the Palestinians.
The neocons don't care about the Palestinians. They see the Palestinians as eternal enemies, Biblical enemies, the descendants of "the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites," some of which nations the Hebrews wrote in their Old Testament that they exterminated. Well, I refer then to only those nations that were not entirely exterminated by the Jews. Certainly the Canaanites were not entirely exterminated. Also, there were intermarriages in those days between nations.
What will McCain and the other neocons do about all the U.S. autocratic puppets? Those aren't democracies. Will they insist that those regimes change or suffer invasion and occupation? Will they force Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and others to democratize and to what standard?
Is the U.S. a representative democracy or an oligarchy or plutocracy in semi-disguise?
Why is coercive democracy seen as better than other forms of government? Well, the neocons blame that on Kant who observed that democracies are less likely to attack each other. The neocons claim that it is better to fight what they've called the long war to end up with the "perpetual peace" Kant envisioned. Coercion however is not the means to peace. Coercion itself is anti-peace.
There is no coercion in peace; however, to sustain the neocons vision of peace there must be coercive democracy. The neocons brand of democracy, if it can be called democracy at all, is to be rammed down everyone else's throat. I don't want it. It falls woefully short of the state called for by Jesus Christ.
Theirs is not the best devised form of government. I don't want less than the best government.
They want to make the world safe for capitalism, corporatism, and plutocracy. That world can never be safe. That world is inherently evil, sinful, self-centered, unenlightened, etc.
This League of Democracies idea is bad. It should be rejected. It's a ploy by antichrists (anti-salvationists). It comes out from the dark side.
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)