He can't get away with throwing stones. He lives in a glass house. However, why can McCain throw stones when he too lives in a glass house? Well, so-called conservative Republicans of his ilk don't care that McCain lives in a glass house. They're only glad that Obama does too. They're glad about it, because swing-voters hate certain of the so-called liberal ideas more than they hate things such as torturing the innocent. What a mess.
The general American population is going to get exactly what it deserves, and what it deserves isn't pretty. Satan is the great accuser. It sure is difficult sometimes defending the human race against him.
The fact though is that the choices are becoming extremely stark even while people are trying harder and harder to pretend they don't know any better. The winking that's going on between people who imagine that if they can just ignore people like me isn't going to work. The efforts at marginalizing and isolating and keeping down and denying, etc., just aren't going to work.
Look, I'm not accusing. I'm sounding the alarm. I'm warning that the legions are coming. The system is evil, and it's going to come crashing down, thank God.
What choices for chief shepherd — who picked Obama and McCain? The plutocrats did. They set the tone of the organs they own.
The plutocrats picked Obama, because he's seen as weak and fake. They picked McCain, because he's long since bought and paid for, and he's a huge militant turned Zionist. He takes his cues from the Kagans (Donald Kagan and his sons Robert "Bob" and Frederick "Fred"), Randy Scheunemann, Joseph Lieberman, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, and other militant Zionists. Kristol and Bob Kagan started the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
By wanderwolf - May 21, 2008, 2:18AM
McCain says the Surge was a huge success. We shall see. It isn't over yet. Can you count over a million dead Iraqis and millions more as war refugees a success just because the Surge has bribed people and walled off people from each other? The Iraqis in government are now turning against the same group the U.S. turned to for the Surge: The neighborhood vigilantes. The Iraq government wants to shut off the flow of money (bribes).
The Iraq War and occupation are sheer evil. McCain was for invading on lies. He says nothing about it now. He isn't asked by the media that is owned and controlled by the plutocrats either.
What do they, McCain and Obama, say about all the civilians (women and children) being killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia? They don't care about it. Empire is more important than the lives of the innocent.
When McCain has to get rid of Phil Gramm, they quickly move on. When he has to get rid of John Hagee, they quickly move on. They do the same concerning Obama, but not so quickly or easily. They dwelled on Jeremiah Wright versus how John Hagee was just a blip, even though Jeremiah raised some important issues and questions that should be investigated.
When McCain says that Czechoslovakia is still a nation or that Afghanistan and Iraq share a border or that Iran has trained al Qaeda in Iraq, they just ignore it and move on. They also ignore that his wife's tens of millions of dollars comes from beer that was started under Jewish Mob power coming out of the Prohibition years. They ignore his covering for the Indian Gaming lobby. They also ignore Obama's real estate deals with corrupt developers in Chicago though too.
Obama voted against the war, but he isn't saying much about it. He never has. He can't dwell on it, because the Zionists would pull the money rug out from under him. They unleash a torrent of bad press against him. If you think it's bad now, it would be ten times worse. The general public that is busy watching inane TV would simply hypnotically absorb the 10- or even just 3-second sound bites.
McCain has big money, and he's for it.
Both McCain and Obama are nothing but wind testers. They go with whatever will get them elected.
If you go with McCain, you'll get more dirty and toxic energy, more rapid global warming, more disparity in wealth, and more war and intervention around the world.
With Obama, you'll get the Clinton crowd warmed over but without the boom cycle that was the dot-com bubble. You'll get someone who throws the word change around as if it hadn't already been worn out decades ago. We don't need change for change's sake. We need righteousness for righteous' sake.
Both Obama and McCain claim Christianity, but neither has the faintest idea or care. It just gets them votes from dupes.
Now, the reports are coming out that more people want religion to get out of politics. Well, the problem is that that's no solution at all. What needs to happen is to get evil out of politics. What needs to happen is to bring forth the political economy of Jesus. That won't ever happen within a system that is based upon coercion as this one is. One cannot be a member of the Christian faith and vote for secular candidates for secular offices. It isn't compatible. It violates the foundation of the religion, that is, against forcing people. Jesus forced no one in the secular realm.
McCain worships mammon and Mars and not in that order. Obama worships them too, but he's not as committed to anything. They are both in the pocket of corporatism.
How do these two feel about all the surveillance cameras and tracking software? How do they feel about seizing and searching the laptops of innocent U.S. citizens re-entering the country? Apparently Obama has said he will roll back all of the decrees of the George W. Bush administration that violate the Bill of Rights. He is also opposed to all the tax-cuts for the superrich in the face of a deepening recession for the poorest of the poor. McCain though has not taken such positions. He has said that he is for extending tax cuts to corporations. That just benefits the superrich more at the expense of everything else.
What about McCain using the infamous false-Christian leader Ralph Reed (Jack Abramoff's associate) for fundraising? Reed has not repented. Reed did terrible things toward the Indian tribes so he could share in raking off lobbying money.
And of course, McCain is yelling against Russia, as if the U.S. and Israel didn't put Georgia up to invading Ossetia. McCain had also said that the U.S. should consider bombing North Korea when North Korea first showed up as a possible nuclear-weapons developing nation. McCain is also yelling about Iran. He's totally mischaracterized Venezuela too. Frankly, there just hasn't been a possible U.S. invasion that McCain hasn't liked. He's totally imperialistic. He's probably the most imperialistic major presidential nominee since Teddy Roosevelt.
Of course, the U.S. and Israeli neocons and Likudniks aren't saying anything about the degree of corruption and tyranny of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Saakashvili is not a democrat. He's a would-be dictator. He promised to work diplomatically and to negotiate peacefully concerning South Ossetia. He unilaterally, with U.S. and Israel funding, training, and equipment, attacked the Russians of South Ossetia. All the major U.S. mainstream corporate news media were prepped with propaganda against the inevitable Russian counterattack to come to the rescue of Russians and Russian territorial interests.
While the U.S. media speaks poorly of Putin, they only go so far. They won't bring up the poisonings of spies and foreign leaders and the hits on Russian journalists or the false-flag operation that was the Moscow Apartment Bombings or other like matters. The reason for that is because they don't want to stimulate the people's thoughts along such lines since there are parallels in American activities. The corporate media are already very disconcerted over the fact that people such as me who write articles such as this. They are also not too thrilled that now that the Iron Curtain has come down and the Berlin Wall is no more, they have less of an excuse not to print the words of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitry Medvedev, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Colonel General Anatoliy Nogovitsyn, and former President Mikhail Gorbachev and other top Russians.
General Nogovitsyn has said that Poland could become a nuclear target if the U.S. put ABMs in Poland.
So now, the U.S. military-industrial complex will have its old enemy back so it can justify its weapons. The War on Terrorism just wasn't enough. It has to be a New Cold War against Russia and China and others. It's why they are escalating against the Taliban, which isn't al Qaeda. It's all about oil, pipelines, weapons manufacturing and sales, and money, power, and control. It's not about democracy. It's about markets.
You don't hear McCain or Obama speaking truth about the Ponzi scheme by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. You don't hear them calling for the nationalization of the so-called National Bank. You don't hear them calling for the de-privatization of the U.S. currency. You hear them going along with socialism for the superrich and upper-middle class speculators and the hardest of laissez-faire capitalism for those who didn't speculate who are the poor and working poor.
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)