Barack Obama is having a time getting through his public-option healthcare even though it has been shown that the statement about abortion funding is a lie, death panels is a wild stretch, lack of choice of doctor and hospital is a lie, and stories about other countries problems with public healthcare are mostly lies and selective exaggerations, etc.
Are the Democrats going to go the appropriations route so they don't need to get 60 votes to override a Republican filibuster against the public option? The French have public healthcare. They have better outcomes, a longer lifespan, greater user satisfaction, spend much less on national healthcare, and are rated number one in the world. Why is the U.S. bringing up the bottom of the developed world in so many telling categories? Greed, stupidity, ignorance, and lies are among the reasons.
He's not having an easy time of it concerning a consumer-protection agency concerning financial deals with banks and others either.
He's confronting opposition to derivatives regulation even though the recent history shows what a disaster deregulation and non-regulation have been.
9/11 Still a Smoldering Issue
Obama is making a huge error in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He sounds just like George W. Bush about al Qaeda when people in the know realize that 9/11 was never fully investigated. It must be the largest least investigated event in American history. The list of unanswered questions is only growing too.
Dick Cheney Fears Torture
Dick Cheney's guts are in a knot. He's being tortured by the thought that he could be put in the dock, found guilty, and have to spend the rest of his life behind bars for his role in torturing others, many of whom were completely innocent, such as Canadian, German, and British Muslims kidnapped, rendered, imprisoned, and tortured for nothing other than because under Bush/Cheney the U.S. just could.
Cheney says that the CIA shouldn't have to consider what some future administration might think of their actions today. Nonsense, they should always be considering whether or not what they are doing violates the law. What an absurd notion is Cheney's.
Dick Cheney also repeatedly said that memos disclosed would prove that torture worked. They have not, and it wouldn't matter regardless. Experts have testified to the public that valuable information was obtained before torture and that what came after was junk because people say anything to stop the torture.
More importantly, we don't torture not because it doesn't work. We don't torture because 1) innocent people can be caught up in investigations and have been tortured and 2) it's barbaric, and we claim not to be barbarians but rather civilized human beings who do not do to others what we don't want done to us (hence Dick Cheney hating the torture he's undergoing now for having been such a monster).
Dick Cheney blew it. He did one of the worst things people can do to others and also got caught doing it. Many torture victims died: scores of them died at the hands of U.S. interrogators under orders from Bush and Cheney who are both just as guilty, even more guilty, then if they had shot those people dead point blank themselves.
By the way, much as been made about the lack of training they had even though Cheney said they were highly professional and highly trained. I never said they were that, but I will tell you that they were all supervised by those who had studied the techniques used down through the centuries (yes centuries). All this talk about that all the techniques were new or learned only recently from the Koreans (early 1950's) and such is bull. Some of the techniques were newish, but the British learned a great deal during their Empire days and recently with their dealings over the Northern Ireland debacle. Also, the Israelis certainly shared with their new big bully friend all the techniques that the Likudniks learned against the Palestinians and others. Of course, the U.S. had plenty of its own experience going back through all of its wars where men did things that they never told the wife and kids when they got back from the front. Things got out of hand though when the TV cameras showed My Lai and Central American death squads. That's why George W. Bush's team clamped down so hard on journalism in the war zones. They didn't want the truth to get out again causing another wave of Vietnam Syndrome (war hating; evil hating).
Meanwhile, FOX News talks rubbish. They talk about disrespecting the CIA and the CIA Director, etc., as if disrespecting evil is bad.
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)