AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN PREDATOR DRONES, GAZA SIEGE, IRAQ STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT, OBAMA NEOCON RETREADS, VETERANS' CONSTITUTION TOO

Afghanistan

Afghani President Hamid Karzai wants an end to all the killing of innocents in Afghanistan. The original deals that put him in place haven't panned out (haven't turned out well, haven't yielded gold, aren't successful). He's been disillusioned again. He apparently didn't realize how drawn out the whole thing would be. He didn't realize that the U.S. neocons would kill so many civilians so carelessly. So now he's grasping. He knows that the U.S. has stepped up its use of predator drones. He knows that Obama is going to bring fresh blood to the fight.

Barack Obama has promised to attack the Pakistani Territories in the hunt down of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Karzai knows that this is going to present a condition that could easily spillover into Afghanistan to only compound Afghanistan's already horrendous problems if not done the way Karzai envisions they should be done (carefully targeted).

Therefore, Karzai has tried to extend an olive branch to Mullah Omar and the Taliban who aren't taking him up on and neither are the Afghan Parliament or the Bush administration.

If no one will listen to him, he should resign and move out of the country for his own safety.

Note: Hamid Karzai has often been linked to tentative plans for oil pipelines running through Afghanistan. This blog has run with such stories even though Karzai and Unocal have since denied any such relationship. A rightwing, militaristic site Global Security claims that the original source of the story may be Le Monde.

Whether or not Hamid Karzai is as the alleged Le Monde mistake has characterized him vis-a-vis Unocal, oil has been central to the issue of Afghanistan.

(See: "Tomgram: Nick Turse, The Bush Administration Strikes Oil in Iraq." "The Iraqi Oil Ministry's New Fave Five: All the Oil News That's Fit to Print (Attn: The New York Times)," by Nick Turse. TomDispatch. July 7, 2008. See also: "The Military-Petroleum Complex," by Nick Turse. Foreign Policy In Focus. March 24, 2008.)

Pakistan and U.S. Predator Drones

The U.S. has really stepped up its use of predator drones {armed UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles)} to track and kill. They are run by a combination of the equipment mounted in and on the drones and by satellites and ground computers and human personnel thousands of miles away in cushy chairs and air-conditioned rooms.

The number of drone attacks is increasing at an alarming rate. The U.S. government is having the military and intelligence agencies use the drones in the sovereign national territories of other countries often apparently against the wills of those countries and regardless of the lack of evidence that the targets are truly terrorists.

Who's to stop the U.S. from doing this? Those countries don't have the technology to shoot down the drones at least not that they are prepared to expend for that purpose for now. They don't want to become targets of drones. They don't want to be lumped in with supposed terrorists the drones are ostensibly tracking, targeting, and killing. They don't want the U.S. to cut off finances. They don't want to get into a spending contest with the U.S. There are numerous variables in the calculus.

This is the new warfare. Track someone, kill him and the people around him, go have lunch at the local fast food place on or near the base in America, go back for more time on the clock, then go home to take it out on the wife and kids who don't know what the Hell kind of evil you're up to, killing people who may not be guilty of anything but hating people who kill innocent people with drones.

Well, these drones are going to precipitate anti-drone weapons. There will be anti-drone drones. There will be fully autonomous drones, meaning completely robotic (no human remote control unless an override is issued). There are laser weapons for shooting down drones and air-to-air and ground-to-air and ship-to-air missiles. It's a spiral. It's a dreadful waste of resources that don't contribute to economic productivity of the renewable kind needed.

Gaza

Why are the Israelis shutting down Gaza's services again and again and again? Why are they always doing something to escalate tensions and violence and then blaming the Hamas for starting the renewed trouble? Why are they being so inhuman toward their fellow human beings? Why are they being so incredibly insensitive about even the little children in Palestine and especially Gaza? As also applies to the U.S., when will Israel as an official government be civilized toward its neighbors? When will that brutality end?

The Israeli approach concerning Gaza is deliberately erratic to throw off observers and to deflect criticism. If they clamp down and let up and then clamp down and let up again, then the policy has more deniability built in. If they say they're going to attack then don't, the same thing applies. When they finally do attack, they claim they showed much restraint, pointing to the back and forth. Also, this entire approach throws the subject off root causes and allows the Israelis to claim they are only, and always, being merely reactive rather than original perpetrators.

So, the Gazans are being reduced to eating cereals, sugar, and oil for refusing to resign themselves to having been forced by violence from their ancestral land.

This is all happening because the Bible says the Jews took the land by force before and then lost it. They were allowed to move back in by the British who thought they were doing something consistent with some notion of a Judeo-Christian religion; however, there is no such thing.

Jesus doesn't hold with the Jews in Israel doing to the Palestinian Arabs what they are doing. Anyone calling himself or herself a Christian who doesn't know that is full of falsehood and ignorance.

Iraq and the U.S. Occupation's Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

This agreement is being rushed into place so that the incoming Obama administration will have something to point to when it starts taking huge criticism from the left in America for prolonging the occupation of Iraq. The U.S. oligarchs have no intention of leaving Iraq completely. They want the oil contracts to go forward. That's the primary reason the U.S. went into Iraq. The U.S. spent hundreds of billions to get those contracts locked up. It isn't going to just walk away.

Obama and Neocon, Clinton-Retread Advisors

The list of people surrounding Barack Obama is just the same right-of-center group that controlled under Carter and Clinton and brought us Waco, NAFTA, the mess in Yugoslavia, the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children murdered under the sanctions regime, the Rwandan genocide, the Somalia military disaster, the dot-com bubble, the war on welfare recipients, the economic shock of Paul Volker, continued deregulation, and on and on.

They are not a team assembled to solve problems. They are a team assembled to continue them.

Why is Larry Summers, for instance, being considered for a high economic position by Barack Obama when that same Larry Summers wrote that the industrialized nations should ship toxic waste to Africa because the people there are worth less than in the industrialized and developed nations? He also said women are inherently inferior. He further presided over the utter failure of Lithuania. He ran that country into the ground. He helped to ruin Russia where he helped guide the oligarchs into power with devastating consequences. I wouldn't let the unrepentant Larry Summers balance my personal check book let alone run the largest economy in the world as U.S. Treasury Secretary. He's right there with Rahm Emanuel, able to raise millions from Wall Street's neoliberal Washington Consensus types (investment bankers) while also being a neocon (political and religious Zionist).

U.S. Constitution Ignored

Why have 15 U.S. veterans been charged with the crime of exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceably assemble to ask for the redress of their grievances? What is wrong with America that it can't seem to get anything right? Why is it so corrupted? When will it be civilized? When will the brutality end?

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.