Yesterday, I wrote on Twitter: "Hand it to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, he's vastly wiser [giving him a modicum of the benefit of the doubt while still hedging — rightly so] than Qaddaffi. Will he though allow multi-party democracy & run or neither?" "If Syria's Assad can keep peace, he'll have set the bar very high for other leaders throughout the Middle East, North Africa, & the world."
Well, he lied and not very well! He lifted the Emergency Laws but turned around a murdered even innocent, peaceful protesters. He's apparently even dumber than Qaddaffi.
Even Qaddaffi would have known that promising to allow protests and then killing dozens of protesters would make him look even dumber than he already looks and is.
I said, "If Syria's Assad can keep peace...." He didn't even try. What in the world did he think he was accomplishing by even lifting the Emergency Laws in name only? He's only made his position worse. Now the people have no option but to remove him by any means necessary or knuckle under to his sheer evil. They aren't pacifists, though they've shown huge restraint. Why does he tempt them so? He's further making himself the son of the Devil.
Now the UN has no option but to treat Assad much the way it has been treating Qaddaffi. Assad's regime will have to be subjected to all the sanctions and warnings concerning mass-murdering civilians.
This is a test of the United Nations and the whole Security Council structure — the reason for it having been brought into existence, at least on paper.
Many people believe that the UN was a fake tool of the Empire from the start and had no intention of treating all nations equally before the international law. We see the gross inconsistencies. We see where and against who and for whom coercion is exercised. We see that it is used against Qaddaffi to protect civilians but not used against the Zionists of Israel to protect Palestinian civilians against land theft, false imprisonment, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and many other evils and illegalities. God is watching. The proverbial spirit of Satan owns much of the UN so far.
"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4)
People have been hoping that Bashar would not follow in his father's footsteps. If he's capable of lifting the Emergency Laws one day and murdering dozens the next, including little children, he could probably order the murder of 20,000 with as little conscience.
From a purely worldly perspective, it would be better that Bashar and his crew be put out of power and then deal with any rivaling factions.
The days of dictators' self-determination and the Balance-of-Power theory and supporting strongmen to keep "order" (anti-civil rights) are over.
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)