We have Patrick J. Buchanan reminding us that Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro, and Kosovo made up Yugoslavia and that when they all started to split away from Serbia, as the Ossetians are splitting away from the ethnic group the Georgians, the U.S. was all for the breakup.
Yugoslavia had not been a member of the Warsaw Pact with the Russians. Tito was the leader of Yugoslavia. He was a Communist but independent. He was nonaligned. He wasn't an enemy of the U.S. or U.S.S.R. He kept the peace between and among the different ethnic groups and religions. He was smarter about the economy too. Yugoslavia did fairly well as a nation. Of course, because it was Communist and Tito wasn't some kind of Mao, none of his people starved to death or went homeless or shoeless, etc. The living standard wasn't quite up to the usual Western middle class (it was close), but more importantly, the Yugoslavian lower class was very much better off then the usual Western lower class.
Well, Bill Clinton and his neocons hated it. So Clinton destroyed Yugoslavia behind a pack of lies, just like George W. Bush. Do you think that maybe that's part of the reason Nancy Pelosi has refused to impeach George W. Bush? After all, Bush has all the evidence about what the Democrats did.
The U.S. (NATO) bombed Serbia and Kosovo for 78 days in 1999 killing untold numbers of the innocent.
wrote the following:
David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been murdered. Tony Blair invoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The west's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose murderous record was set aside. The British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.
With the Nato bombing over, international teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, Del Ponte's tribunal announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide in Kosovo. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.
That was not all, says Del Ponte [Carla Del Ponte, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague] in her book [The Hunt: Me and War Criminals]: the KLA kidnapped hundreds of Serbs and transported them to Albania, where their kidneys and other body parts were removed; these were then sold for transplant in other countries. She also says there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the Kosovar Albanians for war crimes, but the investigation "was nipped in the bud" so that the tribunal's focus would be on "crimes committed by Serbia".
Those are the gangsters Bush gave a new country of Kosovo to head up.
So now, the U.S. is lying about Georgia the same way it lied about Mexico, Japan, Hawaii, Germany, Iran, Korea, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and on and on, and is lying about Venezuela and Bolivia and now Iran again, not that all the others were or are sainted nations. Sean M. Madden (NOTE: Clarification added: Wednesday, September 03, 2008: 7:41:44 PM PST: Mr. Madden is not, nor has he ever been, associated with the Real Liberal Christian Church) reminds us that the U.S. was doing a "military training exercise" inside Georgia starting a month ago (July 15-31, 2008).
In addition, there were U.S. troops with the Georgians as they went into Ossetia.
We have George W. Bush saying the nations don't invade nations in the 21st century. Well, let's change that to nations headed up by civilized, intelligent people don't invade nations in the 21st century based upon lies. I added the last bit so that the whole statement will pass muster with even the most mundanely civilized human being. Therefore, George W. Bush has condemned himself with his own words. This means that this is the standard by which he will be judged when he stands before his maker for the ultimate sorting of souls into two groups: The chosen and the rest. The chosen are those who do their best not to be hypocrites and liars. They are the ones who, if it weren't for the others, the world won't be a bad place to live and Jesus wouldn't have said that if you don't hate yourself in this world, you can't be his disciple.
Now, if your heart is in the right place, no matter how angry you may sometimes be about all of the lies and the murders of millions and even tens and even hundreds of millions down through the ages at the hands of the liars, you still feel for those liars. "There but for the grace of God go I." Have you heard that before? It doesn't remove choice.
Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you and persecute you. You can also hate them while you love them though. In Christianity, that's not politically incorrect but actually required, or more so automatic. It comes with the territory.
You hate evil, and people are what they produce. That's no unsolvable or unreconcilable paradox. It's a fact. You though, as a less than perfect being, cannot be hypocritical about it, to the extent you are given to comprehend. You can't fake it that you don't get it though. That's much worse than not getting it at all.
Here's the truth. George W. Bush gets it and he doesn't get it. He gets it enough that he doesn't have a clear excuse. He doesn't get it enough to do the right thing.
Listen, George has bragged that he's read the Bible cover-to-cover twice. He's heard the reading in churches many, many times. He's read the Gospels. He read the very words of Jesus Christ. He's discussed them at length. When it came time to make choices, he had that to consult even while he was a professing Christian. If he hadn't been a professing Christian, it would be different.
He used his religion to get votes. He knew what he was doing in getting those votes and in taking the nations to war based on lies.
Why does he continue lying in the face of this being public knowledge? How can he show his face, let alone being so boldfaced on top of it? Is he on some mono-mood drug?
Why do so many people come here and read these words and go away to reword them leaving out the real call, the whole calling, and not repent and convert? Why do so many read these words and go away knowing better but pretending or trying to pretend to themselves that they can continue being selfish and harmful to others?
I'm glad I'm seeing my thoughts expressed elsewhere. Every bit helps. Why not though give credit not for the sake of my ego but rather to cause people to make the connection with the need and plan that is the Christian Commons Project™?
Will you do that please? It's the least you can do. Those for whom those words are intended know who they are.
A Source Consulted
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)