Tom Usher wrote or added | Steven A. Cook has written a totally one-sided, Zionist hit piece against Turkey here, as if Israel were the NATO member rather than Turkey. This piece is simple. It tries to pull every psychological trick it can while ostensibly remaining objective. Of course, it's not objective at all. Where's the mention of Israel's terrorism, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, lies, assassinations, and on and on? Where's the understanding that Muslims aren't going to sit around forever while Israel puffs up more and more and more while abusing Muslims; stealing their houses; bulldozing their schools and orphanages and businesses and olive orchards; dumping raw sewage on their fields; shooting at their farmers; walling off their territory — even the part that borders Jordan and not "Israel"; builds and builds a "secret" nuclear arsenal; and shoots Turks to death on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, who had zero guns and didn't kill a single Zionist thug/hit man? I could go on, but I think you get the point, as they say.
As for Turkey, I don't think Turkey would claim perfection. They have serious problems with some Kurds and with Armenians who want recognition for their WWI war dead. However, Turkey is reaching out not only to the East and Iran and south to the Palestinians but also west to Greece and southwest and across the ocean to Brazil. That hardly sounds like being anti-US or anti-West to me. I think America would be wise to join in that reaching-out-process and starting with Iran. There is zero good reason that Barack Obama hasn't invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the US on a formal visit at the highest levels, just the way other Presidents had Soviet and Chinese "enemies" come visit and to talk turkey (pun intended).
Frankly, if Obama had the right stuff, he'd sit down with Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar Assad, Ahmadinejad, Recep Erdogan, Lula de Silva, and the top pick of Hamas (Khaled Mashaal, Ismail Haniyah, Mahmoud Zahar, or all three?) and anyone else with the guts to sit with them (Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman?). He'd work it out. He'd make peace. He'd also make real peace in Afghanistan, where he can't expect everyone to love US culture and where he should stop indiscriminate predator-drone killings (and in Pakistan too). He'd also stop the saber rattling against North Korea and stop claiming that there's proof positive about things (as a pretext for hitting North Korea by various means) when there is no proof positive that the sinking of the South Korean ship was the North's handiwork, such as is also the case regarding Iran and nuclear weapons. There has been zero proof forthcoming against Iran. Also, the South Korean incident is highly suspicious. The last thing the North would have wanted would be a sunken Southern ship with the North's finger prints on torpedo fragments (which were of German origin that other nations, such as, yes, Israel, have).
Anyway, if we don't offer up higher and the highest goals for peace negotiations, how can we ever expect to rise out of the current evil state of affairs?
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)