Some people are reading way too much into that cable. They are taking it as a sign that nothing happens that the US doesn't dictate. Of course, the US tries to manipulate everything. It works all the angles it can see and concerning which it has the resources to deal with, and people should be mindful of that. There are independent actors in the world though.
Also, just because the US works angles doesn't mean that some of those aren't improvements. Should there be a democratic global revolution? Does it have to be "democratic imperialism"?
By the way, contrary to that article, this idea is not new at all. It's at least as old as neoconservatism, and I would argue much older.
Regardless, there are multi-track criticisms going on about the US. One of them comes out from a group that despises democracy on any level and a subset that does so more than do the others. That's the group to watch out for the most. It's very stealthy, and many of its minions, including a number of intellectuals, don't even realize when they start working things in ways that benefit that elitist-of-elitist group.
It's not a hard and fast line of demarcation that one may point to such that everyone will instantly see it. What it is though is what lies at the core of the individual members of that group. Either they have self apart from God there or they have the wholeness of God that is the one soul of humanity. The best way to judge that is by the fruits they bring forth.
If they are bringing forth death of fellow humans (particularly the innocent) or wanton destruction or pollution, one may be certain they are not of God. If they excuse such behavior and advocate for it or secretly desire it, they are not of God.
Of course, it must be said that instigation versus defense are relative offenses. The instigator, the oppressor for evil, has the greater sin; and "evil" there is properly defined as ultimately the more selfish and harmful position to the whole being — the one soul.
Who is representative of this subset I mentioned? Ayn Rand would be a prime past example. She hated the spirit of Jesus Christ to an extent that cannot be overstated.
To be clear, I am not saying that the current iteration/common notion of democracy is God or that Jesus condones coercive democracy. Democracy can be demon-crazy, and Jesus was opposed to humans coercing one another. What he wanted and still does (he lives) is a consensus of all humanity centered on his teachings and life example, which would bring Heaven to Earth in full and would save the world from the other world, the current one, the one ruled by the spirit of Jesus's arch enemy.
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)