Tom Usher wrote or added | "Andrew Exum, a former Army officer in Afghanistan and Iraq, has declared the drone program counterproductive and called for an end to it. In an analysis published last year, Exum and David Kilcullen, a former counterinsurgency advisor to the head of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, dismissed drones as technology substituting for strategy. 'Every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement,' they wrote."
I heard Thom Hartmann make a great analogy the other day on his radio show..Speaking about these drone attacks..saying that wonder if say Canada was looking to catch or kill the NYC bomber...and they sent a drone to bomb his home in Connetticut .. and it Killed him, sure it killed a couple of his neighbors, and there children as well,,but the Canadians then proudly proclaim that YES we gotta our man. How do you think us Americans would feel about that? Ya think there might be a few Americans who would want revenge? It just kinda hit home when described in such a way to me, and it needs to stop!
Â Â Â Â
A deep-seated problem with the "conservative" mindset is that it isn't as able to relate until something hits home. Such "conservatives" don't have an inclination toward empathy. That's why these analogies are even offered up, even though such analogies nearly always fail to work without the actual problem hitting close to home. When a family gets sick, you'll see people start charities to raise funds to defeat that particular disease but not all diseases in general. When a family member gets murdered, you'll see revenge on the family's mind but rarely an appreciation of the families on the other side. Why walk in a Pashtun's shoes for instance in your mind when you've been taught that such people are inferior by virtue of American exceptionalism?
The libertarian mind is almost always more empathetic than the neocon's, but in general, libertarians still have more of the go-it-alone bent that runs contrary to the unity of spirit necessary to save. They also tend to point solely to the worst of the worst on the left as an indictment of all things sharing. They'll share but not first and foremost but after they have their stockpile and not under any coercion.
What the world requires is a universal giving-and-sharing mentality that is nevertheless strictly voluntary. We need a unanimous verdict.
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)