Better read it while you can. The "capitalism for the poor and socialism for the superrich" crowd will take it away soon.
If, for example, an enemy combatant pops up from behind a wall to fire at US troops and then ducks behind it, an XM25 gunner can aim the laser range finder at the top of the wall, then program the shell to detonate one meter beyond it, showering lethal fragmentation where the insurgent is seeking cover.
Right here I thought, think if there are innocents behind that wall somewhere. Then the next paragraph just threw huge War Department propaganda at the people.
Use of the XM25 can slash civilian deaths and damage, the Army argues, because its pinpointed firepower offers far less risk than larger mortars or air strikes.
The result, the Army says, is "very limited collateral damage."
Well, there's also this. Suppose you are an Afghani who believes the U.S. has zero right to be in your country murdering your close relatives. So, you decide to do what any so-called "Red Blooded American" would do were the Afghanis to invade and occupy the U.S., you take up arms against the invader. Now, you shoot at the serpents and move to another location because some people who should not have strayed into your area do in fact stray in. Then, the devils fire one of their XM25 rounds at that location and you watch the people dying on the ground with their bodies shredded. What do you do after that, quit? No, you decide to figure out how to defeat that MX25 and kill as many of the Satanic monsters as you can.
The Pentagon plans to purchase at least 12,500 of the guns — at a price tag of 25,000 to 30,000 dollars each — beginning next year, enough for one in each Infantry squad and Special Forces team.
That's $375,000,000 not counting cost overrides and maintenance supplies and spare parts and ammunition and transportation and storage and, and, and...bankrupt-American's tax dollars at work murdering people for Empire.
You could have taken that whole family you murdered out to dinner on that and won some hearts and minds while not losing your own soul. Maybe you could have taken Afghanistan out to dinner on that — several times. Oh, but then you'd have to let them own their own country and decide what to do with their own raw materials and which corporations could have what pipeline over their land and whether or not you could attack Iran from their soil, etc.
Oh, so the Plutocrats vetoed your dinner invitation and sent you out to murder the "little rag-heads" instead. Well aren't they huffy. Maybe they shouldn't be invited to dinner.
I'm told that Jesus is planning on giving a wedding feast. Do think the plutocrats will be there? How about the soldiers murdering for them with their little XM25 "toys," (remember, it's a "game-changer") will they be there? Maybe they'll "be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." What do you think?
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)