What is Barack Obama doing? Why did he push through Timothy Geithner when Geithner was more than reasonably suspected of having deliberately cheated on his taxes while at the World Bank? Why did Obama push for Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services? Daschle was also reasonably suspected of having deliberately cheated on his taxes too even more than did Geithner. It is right that Daschle has now been withdrawn from consideration. There have been others who had to be withdrawn for other positions. This just should not be happening. Obama doesn't know what he's doing just the way George W. Bush didn't know what Bush was doing other than doing the bidding of the global plutocrats.
I don't write this with an unforgiving heart. It just isn't credible that either of them made harmless errors or honest oversights. They were just too high up not to know how to handle such things. If they were lower down, it would be much more credible. People at the lower end just don't have the incredible resources available to them that either of these men has had. They both just had the funds and networks to have assured near squeaky cleanness if they had wanted it. Of course, if they had wanted it, they wouldn't have had the funds and networks.
What is this now about Obama still planning to use extraordinary renditions? The change he is bringing is going to be much too little. The U.S. needs to denounce extraordinary renditions. It has no business or right to grab people and whisk them away to regimes that might torture them despite any agreements to the contrary (agreements not to torture) with the U.S.
So far, I am not surprised at all by Obama and thoroughly negatively impressed just as I was right from the very beginning of his campaign. He was a bad choice. Then again, what's a good choice for head antichrist?
So, Somalia just elected (re-elected) a leader, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, of the Islamic Courts Union to the office of President. Well, this time, let's hope the U.S. finally works with the people there to bring them around to where the U.S. needs to be too and that's peaceful and non-coercive. The signs don't look good in the District of Columbia so far though — no surprise there, as I mentioned above.
U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon said the U.N. is considering whether to send U.N. peacekeepers to Somalia. They need to encourage the Somalis to be peaceful internally and not to breed violence in Somalia to be exported. That's the right message for the whole world.
...militant Islamists declared jihad against Ahmed and mocked his trip to his former enemy, rallying their supporters for war against the new government.
("New Somali leader feted in capital of former enemy," by Barry Moody and Barry Malone. Reuters. February 2, 2009)
Sheikh Sharif Ahmed is seen as a Muslim heretic by the hardliners in Somalia.
The U.S. originally attacked the Islamic Courts Union by proxy (using the U.S.'s Ethiopian puppet dictator to invade) to cause a wider split so that attacking the hardliners would appear more justified. Watch and see. The only thing that can stop it from happening is speaking out against it in time.
Nuclear and Coal
The U.S. Senate is debating whether to have $50 billion in nuclear and/or coal spending in the Senate's version of the stimulus bill passed by the House. We don't need to spend one dime on either and shouldn't. If we are going to spend $50 billion on anything energy-related, let is be on 100% clean, non-toxic, proven-now energy such as solar.
Wars and Rumors of Wars
- India versus Pakistan
- Pakistan threatening to use a nuclear strike if India attacks
- Israel still threatening to attack Iran
- Israel still threatening to attack Lebanon if Hezbollah carries out threatened retaliation for the assassination of Imad Mugniyah, a Hezbollah top commander killed in a car-bomb attack, February 12, 2008 in Damascus
- More fighting to come in Somalia
- China worried about civil unrest (civil war to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party that isn't communist in any sense of the word)
- U.S. plans on revving up the fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Russia's Putin calling for a whole new economic system (economic-war threat) coming off the U.S. dollar
- U.S. still warning Hamas and Iran in exactly the same kind of language used by the Bush administration
- People protesting and some rioting across much of Europe, especially Eastern Europe
According to the World Food Programme, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation and Palestinian officials, between 35% and 60% of the agriculture industry has been wrecked by the three-week Israeli attack, which followed two years of economic siege.
("Gaza desperately short of food after Israel destroys farmland: Officials warn of 'destruction of all means of life' after the three-week conflict leaves agriculture in the region in ruins," by Peter Beaumont. The Observer. February 1, 2009.)
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)