The title of President Barack Obama's speech, given at the US State Department on May 19, 2011, was "Moment of Opportunity: American Diplomacy in the Middle East & North Africa."
First, if you haven't heard it or want to refresh your memory or check me out on it, here's his speech:
In the title of this blog post, I called it disastrous, here's why. I won't address everything. That would result in a full book or even volumes.
The first thing I heard that really set me to writing notes to start with was Barack's statement that American's short-term actions concerning the Middle East and North Africa won't necessarily jibe with America's long-term goals. That set me off because it points to the heart and soul of what is wrong and has always been wrong not only with US foreign policy but with the whole world from the whole of humanity right down to each individual and back again.
Obama's speech assumes that a sufficient enough number of the right people in Obama's eyes will string along with the type and degree of rationalization that the speech promotes. Anything less from the perspective of that speech and its writers/promoters would be insufficiently realist. So, for Obama, his view is that his position is realistic where mine is exceedingly idealistic and impractical under the current international and national circumstances. It's an age-old philosophical and theological debate.
What's for sale, what will the people buy, and for how long, etc.? Every emotion known to human kind enters into these questions. To expand the realm of consideration, consider the following: Is the soul for sale, and is the Devil buying to own it forever? Well, I'm a Christian, but one doesn't have to be a Christian or religious or even spiritual to consider that the scope of human emotions involved in turning the ship of state of the American Empire is gigantic. I won't belabor it here. Consider also though that a mere worldly human US President may not be able to fool and please everyone.
The speech is a psychological device. Its title suggests a psychological moment. Again, what's he selling? More so, is it enough? Is it what we should want to buy? What could we buy instead? Is wanting more that is vastly better merely unrealistic, or is even suggesting that it is unrealistic a mere psychological device to retard vast improvement? Why would Barack Obama want to retard things, or is he lacking the vision and skills to promote and put over that vision?
Barack Obama gets away with it because of the insufficiency so far of a mass of the people having better vision. This is a circular problem. They feed off him. He feeds off them. The tiny-steps gradualists, the tiny-steps incrementalists, retard the great leaps forward. It has always been so, although there have been breakthroughs. Even with breakthroughs, the naysayers have presented a drag.
Quantum leaps break the psychological mold called human nature. What wasn't possible becomes possible.
What's the Christian position? What I've said is the Christian position. Jesus preformed miracles. Miracles don't happen not on account of miracles being impossible but because there are rules that the old psychological mold that isn't broken yet but that has rather been reinforced doesn't accept. Jesus showed a new mold that has yet to be universally adopted in the "here and now." Barack Obama and I profoundly disagree about this. Materialists on the order of Karl Marx and Stephen Hawking would say Jesus's miracles didn't happen because they weren't possible. They'd make that claim based upon circular reasoning required by their psychological mold. I won't digress here.
We can't have what would be vastly better or best because the people aren't ready for it and can't be made ready fast enough. There's more going on than that, and I don't buy it regardless. It's a crime to have vested interests in retardation, and there are many such criminals in so-called high places.
Hypocrisy and rationalization are malevolent. How obvious are they? Are those behind Barack Obama's speech unaware of the forces at work in their own minds working to retard?
America's short-term actions concerning the Middle East and North Africa won't necessarily jibe with America's long-term goals. That's Obama's position. It's a statement of American foreign policy. He didn't elaborate. The mainstream media requires spurring to question such positions. Their eyes gloss over, or they don't want to bring such questions to the attention of the masses. I do.
That inconsistency is, in very fact, a cover for maliciousness. Read on.
Barack Obama said that the US can't act in other nations as the US has acted in Libya. Qaddaffi has a big mouth. He threatened to go house to house murdering his opposition as rats. Assad of Syria lifted the emergency laws but then increased the murder of unarmed protesters. It is not that Syria has no oil. It is in fact that Obama wanted to avoid the political fallout of another Rwanda and Qaddaffi's big mouth promised to make that fallout huge. Assad's slipperiness includes keeping a lower profile so as to not be such an international squeaky wheel demanding to be greased. This is no unsophisticated analysis.
I didn't want the US going into Libya militarily, while at the same time, I don't want the wicked Qaddaffi's to prevail. I was opposed to the timing and type of uprising in Libya. It was no more thought out than was the rebels racing down open roads in little pickups imagining that they would drive all the way to arrest or kill Qaddaffi nearly unopposed, as if Qaddaffi didn't have any loot stashed away in his coffers that he could use to continue purchasing the tens of thousands of his fellow violent gangsters. Fighting was never the right move. It still isn't, as much as I don't want Qaddaffi ruling over the Libyan people.
The Obama speech was designed to preempt those who would have otherwise said that he ducked issues. He mentioned Saleh of Yemen by name. He also mentioned Bahrain by name. He did not though mention the Saudis. That was telling.
He spoke of Iranian hypocrisy. Iran complains about the poor treatment of Bahraini Shiites while Iran brutalized its own demonstrators — who though were more violent than were the Bahrainis by far.
The Indians didn't fire a shot or throw stone. The British mowed down hundreds. They finally left though. Hitler allegedly said that he would have simply killed Gandhi. That Hitlerian statement is the realists' "proof" that non-violence can't always work. Consider though that violence and abuse created Hitler. When do we finally break the cycle? When will enough people maintain enough patience?
Then Barack lied about Iran's nuclear program by stating emphatically that it is illicit when he has shown zero proof of that. That's a huge sin on his part — very huge. It doesn't matter that the Iranian clerics are against the universal rights Obama promoted. Lying about them is not justified. He could have said that the program is allegedly illicit.
With cause, the Iranian clerics don't like the political Zionists. Those Zionists are the source of the allegations that Iran's nuclear program is to produce nuclear weapons. No proof has ever been forth coming because there hasn't been any such proof. It has all been a psychological device on the part of the Zionists. Did Obama avoid the term weapons? I believe he did. That's because his administration is tap dancing trying to keep the issue alive while backing away from language that elicits replies such as mine: Where's the proof, liars?
When was the last time you heard anyone in the mainstream media ask the US Presidency for the proof? Journalists who would ask would be drummed out for truth-seeking/telling even while Obama claims he's for freedom of the press right down to the individual blogger, such as yours truly. Well, he's also a corporatist, and the major capitalists own the mainstream and fire those who seek truth. It's a given. Mammon hates truth.
I took from his speech that his people have been reading and listening on the Internet, as they should. However, the compromise, the gradualism, the weak front are disappointing. I don't mean the US should rattle sabers. I mean that the US and all other nations should finally take consistently righteous stands to the best of their abilities.
God forgives true ignorance. What God doesn't like is knowledge and then ignoring it for short-term, superficial gains, such as opening markets and territories for negative exploitation to make elitists rich in mammon which is ill-gotten.
Barack Obama's people have heard that freedom of religion is of critical importance. I have consistently emphasized it in especially my microblogging, and I am glad that the White House gets that word one way or another. This is not to be confused with the syncretism hiding in Obama's religious views. I want freedom of religion solely so the Gospel may be freely preached everywhere and in every language. It isn't allowed now because the Gospel in the heart of all the so-called common people would raise them, which is exactly what the retarders don't want, for those retarders are interested in their own relative wealth in mammon and the false power and control it brings them. We're talking ego here. We're talking about sociopathy coming in at the point of the pyramid scheme, the same pyramid that's on the current US one-dollar bill.
Jesus's message in its full context takes that pyramid and turns it right-side up (it's upside down right now) and then levels it.
Then Obama launched into what sounded like dreaded neoliberal economics, which has ruined so many nations around the world and which has been rejected by economies such as Brazil's.
Did he mention social safety-nets even? He emphasized entrepreneurialism. Where's even the Social Security and Medicare for the Egyptians in his mind? We know he didn't change the economic team from the George W. Bush regime. The de-regulators crashed the system, but Obama incorrectly says that those who crashed it are the ones who should clean up the cause. They've toyed around the edges with Keynesianism, actually ruining the Keynesian reputation in the process, for too little applied in the wrong places makes it not work very well — which was part of the thinking and planning. There's nothing like deliberately not seizing the moment. Obama is doing the same downplaying now concerning the Middle East and North Africa.
George H. W. Bush deliberately let Russia collapse. His failed Reagan/Bush policy made the oligarchs possible. Now Putin is a billionaire many times over by virtue of his power and control. Just look at his lifestyle. If you don't believe me, just try taking it away. He talks the libertarian game but runs/owns the corporate state. Was it another coup d'Ã©tat?
Meanwhile, Obama speaks as a pre-Keynesian rather than a post-Keynesian. Post-Keynesianism is what's needed as a stepping stone to health. The people aren't ready, but that's only due to censorship.
Obama talked about lending Egypt money. Lending means interest payments. Why does anyone want to gain in that way off the Egyptian people right when Egyptians need debt-free help? You see, there's a huge problem with the neoliberal program. It is selfish interests always inserting themselves. It's not even stealthy. It's blatant. The Egyptians have been held down, so let's charge them interest. Let's not show them how to have an economy that is interest-and-debt free.
Barack called for "trade liberalization," which is the same old Washington Consensus crap that ruined Central and South America and, as I've said, has been rejected by wiser heads.
When Obama calls for trade liberalization, he has the elitists' interests at heart. He is supposed to be the President of the American people looking out for their interests. Trade liberalization that came without labor, environmental, and other safeguards ruined the US economy on purpose. It ruined thousands of Mexican organic farms. It caused tens of thousands of suicides in India. The Washington Consensus collapsed Argentina. They're still digging their way out.
The superrich though moved their manufacturing, etc., to wherever rules were loosest and labor cheapest and most exploitable.
This is why those same elitists are trying to kill the vestiges of the unions in the US — to make US workers work for third-world wages and benefits and under third-world environmental and working conditions and standards. This is the plan of the Ayn Randians and the CATO and Ludwig von Mises Institute types — the Koch Brother types, who never know a good cause until they've suffered the disease firsthand and then maybe they still don't get the message, such as with David Koch and his prostate cancer where that's now on his giving list. What chemicals does he produce and doesn't want regulated and that cause cancer?
Then in his speech, Obama turned his attention to Palestine. Here, he is even worse than concerns Iran. He does not mention ethnic cleansing. He doesn't mention the land grabbing. He didn't mention the war crimes. How could he while avoiding the issue of American war crimes?
He made the utterly ridiculous statement that efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. The Zionist regime is being shown more and more everyday to never have been legitimate in the first place. Trying to legitimize it is what will end in failure, Barack. Your policy concerning Zionism is a failure from the start, Mr. Obama.
Barack Obama is on the wrong side of history on this issue. His position is the same one held by the Apartheid South Africa Afrikaners, who lost their supposed right to a state of, by, and for them over the indigenous population. The Jewish political Zionists in what is called Israel are creating an Apartheid state every bit as onerous, even more so, than what was done in South Africa that world public opinion and actions finally brought down. Whose side of that issue is Obama on?
Maybe you feel that the Afrikaners didn't suffer at the hands of Adolf Hitler and that the Zionists deserve pity. The Zionists declared war on Germany in 1933, long before Kristallnacht (the night of broken glass) in 1938, when German Nazis broke Jewish shop windows and much more before WWII.
Text of Untermyer's Address
Following is the text of Samuel Untermyer's address last night over Station WABC after his return from Europe:
What a joy and relief and sense of security to be once more on American soil! The nightmares of horrors through which I have passed in those two weeks in Europe, listening to the heartbreaking tales of refugee victims, beggar description.
I deeply appreciate your enthusiastic greeting on my arrival today, which I quite understand is addressed not to me personally but to the holy war in the cause of humanity in which we are embarked. Jews and non-Jews alike, for we are equally concerned that the work of centuries shall not be undone, and that civilization shall not be allowed to die.
It is a war that must be waged unremittingly until the black clouds of bigotry, race hatred and fanaticism that have descended upon what was once Germany, but is now medieval Hitlerland, have been dispersed. If we will but enlist to a man and persist in our purpose, the bright sun of civilization will again shine upon Germany, and the world will be a safer place in which to dwell.
As our ship sailed up the bay today past our proud Statue of Liberty, I breathed a prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving that this fair land of freedom has escaped the curse that has descended upon benighted Germany, which has thereby been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts.
The World's Concern
We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage. This time the Jews are the victims, next time it may be the Catholics or the Protestants. If we once admit, as is brazenly insisted by the German Government, that such fiendish persecution of the people of one race or creed is an internal domestic affair and not a world concern, how are we to know whose turn will be next?
Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the monstrous claim that the slaughter, starvation and annihilation, by a country that has reverted to barbarism, of its own innocent and defenseless citizens without rhyme, reason or excuse is an internal affair against which the rest of the world must stand idly by and not lift a hand in defense.
I have seen and talked with many of these terror-stricken refugees who have had the good fortune to escape over the border, though forced to leave their property behind them, and I want to say to you that nothing that has seeped through to you over the rigid censorship and lying propaganda that are at work to conceal and misrepresent the situation of the Jews in Germany begins to tell a fraction of the frightful story of fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children, of the terrors of worse than death in which they are living.
When the tale is told, as it will be some day if the impotent League of Nations ever sufficiently awakens from its Rip Van Winkle slumbers to the realization of its power and duty to prosecute an investigation into the facts, the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities will pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people — a people who love and have shed their blood for their Fatherland, and to whom Germany owes in large part its prosperity and its great scientists, educators, lawyers, physicians, poets, musicians, diplomats and philosophers, who are the backbone of its past cultural life.
Back to Dark Ages
But why dwell longer upon this revolting picture of the ravages wrought by these ingrates and beasts of prey, animated by the loathsome motives of race hatred, bigotry and envy. For the Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself, but that furnishes no reason why we should permit this reversion of a once great nation to the Dark Ages or fail to rescue these 600,000 human souls from the tortures of hell as we can with the aid of our Christian friends, if we have the will to act.
Protests and pleas from all corners of the earth, from the leaders of all creeds, having proven as vain and unavailing as was the idealistic dream of our martyred President of making the world safe for democracy and of protecting minorities, what then are to be the lines of our defensive campaign against these atrocities, on which we are already actively embarked? Are we right in our plan? If so, what steps shall now be prosecuted to attain success?
Our campaign is twofold — defensive and constructive. On the defensive side will be the economic boycott against all German goods, shipping and services. On the constructive side will be an appeal to the League of Nations to construe and enforce the labor union provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the written promises made by Germany, while the treaty was under negotiation, to protect its minorities, which have been flagrantly violated by its disfranchisement and persecution of the German Jews.
What Boycott Means
As in the boycott, strange to say a mere handful in number, but powerful in influence, of our thoughtless but doubtless well-intentioned Jews seem obsessed and frightened at the bare mention of the word "boycott". It signifies and conjures up to them images of force and illegality, such as have on occasions in the past characterized struggles between labor unions and their employers. As these timid souls are capitalists and employers, the word and all that it implies are hateful to their ears.
In point of fact, it signifies nothing of the kind. These gentlemen do not know what they are talking or thinking about. Instead of surrendering to their vague fears and half-baked ideas, our first duty is to educate them as to what is meant by a purely defensive economic boycott, and what we are doing and proposing.
Admittedly, the boycott is our only really effective weapon. These gentlemen who are taking counsel of their groundless fears to the exclusion of their reason have done nothing and have no program except to attempt to arouse world opinion, which is and has been from the outset on our side, as it was bound to be because of this brutal, senseless, unprovoked assault upon civilization.
It is not necessary to belittle or underrate that accomplishment, if their aimless, fruitless endeavors in that direction may be so dignified in recognition of their good intentions, barren of results as they have been.
It is sufficient that their efforts have proven unavailing and that the campaign of Schreckligheit not only goes on unabated in the face of unanimous world opinion; but that it is increasing in intensity and that the masses of the German people, misled by government propaganda and suppression of free speech and of the press, are either voluntarily, or through fear of punishment at the hands of their despotic rulers, supporting their government in this hellish campaign.
What then have these amiable gentlemen accomplished and what do they hope or expect to accomplish in the way of stemming this conflagration of civilization by their "feather-duster" methods? You cannot put out a fire, and especially that kind of a fire, by just looking on until the mad flames, fanned by the wind of hate, have destroyed everything.
What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.
"Force Them to Learn"
They have flaunted and persisted in flaunting and defying world opinion.
We propose to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand. Hitler and his mob will not permit their people to know how they are regarded by the outside world. We shall force them to learn in the only way open to us.
Revolting as it is, it would be an interesting study in psychology to analyze the motives, other than fear and cowardice, that have prompted Jewish bankers to lend money to Germany as they are now doing. It is in part their money that is being used by the Hitler regime in its reckless, wicked campaign of propaganda to make the world anti-Semitic; with that money they have invaded Great Britain, the United States and other countries where they have established newspapers, subsidized agents and otherwise are spending untold millions in spreading their infamous creed.
The suggestion that they use that money toward paying the honest debts they have repudiated is answered only by contemptuous sneers and silence. Meantime the infamous campaign goes on unabated with ever increasing intensity to the everlasting disgrace of the Jewish bankers who are helping to finance it and of the weaklings who are doing nothing effective to check it.
The Hitler regime originated are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in vile concentration camps, starving and torturing them, murdering and beating them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.
Appeal to Mankind
As against this, the foulest boycott in the annals of time, we are appealing to all mankind to enforce a counter-boycott. That appeal is meeting with the conviction that idealism and justice are still alive.
There is nothing new in the use of the economic boycott as an instrument of justice. The covenant of the League of Nations expressly provides in these identical words for its use to bring recalcitrant nations to terms. President Roosevelt, whose wise statesmanship and vision are the wonder of the civilized world, is invoking it in furtherance of his noble conception for the readjustment of the relations between capital and labor under the terms of the sweeping Industrial Recovery Act, to the end that labor shall receive a more just share of the wealth it creates. He is about to enlist the consumers of the country in a national campaign in which they pledge themselves to boycott all manufacturers, jobbers and retailers who fail to subscribe to the codes and to buy only from those who have assented and who are thereby privileged to fly the blue eagle of NRA [National Recovery Act]. What more exalted precedent do our timid friends want?
With this explanation of our aims, I appeal to the American Jewish Committee, whose public spirit and good intentions I do not for a moment question, but the wisdom of whose judgment I challenge, no longer to hold aloof but to rid themselves of their timid and ill-considered prejudices and join in actively pressing this boycott as our only weapon except the appeal to the League, which I shall discuss at a later time.
I purposely refrain from including the American Jewish Congress in this appeal because I am satisfied that 95 per cent of their members are already with us and that they are being misrepresented by two or three men now abroad. Of them I ask that, prior to the meeting to be held this month in Prague by their executive committee, they instruct these false leaders in no uncertain terms as to the stand they must take on this all-important subject and demand that they shall either openly represent their views or resign their offices. One of them, generally recognized as the kingpin of mischief makers, is junketing around the Continent engaged in his favorite pastime of spreading discord, asserting at one time and place that he favors and supports the boycott and at another that he is opposed or indifferent to it, all dependent on the audience he is addressing; but always directly or indirectly delivering a stab in the dark.
Progress So Far Made
There is not time now, but I hope and expect in the near future to be able to report to you the steps that have been taken and that are already under way, and the surprising and gratifying progress already made in many countries toward the success of the economic boycott in which we are engaged. Although considerable progress in that direction has already been made in Great Britain and in the United States, you will be surprised to learn that they are the least advanced and as yet the most inadequately organized of all the countries that were represented at the Amsterdam World Economic Conference, where the boycott was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by formal resolution by a rising vote.
With us in America the delay has been due in part to lack of funds and the vast territory to be covered, but it is hoped, and expected, that this condition will soon be corrected. The object-lesson we are determined to teach is so priceless to all humanity that we dare not fall.
Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping.
To our shame be it said that there are a few Jews among us, but fortunately only a few, so wanting in dignity and self-respect that they are willing to travel on German ships where they are despised and meet with the just contempt of the servants who wait upon them and of their fellow passengers. Their names should be heralded far and wide. They are traitors to their race.
In conclusion, permit me again to thank you for this heartening reception and to assure you that, with your support and that of our millions of non-Jewish friends, we will drive the last nail in the coffin of bigotry and fanaticism that has dared raise its ugly head to slander, belie and disgrace twentieth century civilization.
Source: The New York Times, Monday, August 7, 1933
Samuel Untermyer was an exceedingly influential New York Jewish attorney deeply involved in international Zionism with it supremacist designs on Palestine.
The impact of the Zionists' economic moves against the Germans going back to during and after WWI was hugely negative. The weight of the WWI reparations was crushing and exceptionally greedy on the part of those draining the Germans as wage-slaves. It was very, very bad but has been underplayed at best and often completely censored from typical public-school history books and TV, etc. The Zionists were, among other evil things, there in force calling for WWI and then for horrendously wicked reparations. The situation at the time infuriated Adolf Hitler and many other Germans and understandably so. Most of that history completely and deliberately is neglected in the American public educational system due to Zionist influences in and over vast swathes of the American media, including publishing.
Rather than tell all sides of the various positions, the Zionists have taken the wildest stories of the most extreme liars and held those up to the world as proof of what they call the holocaust to milk so much sympathy and to elicit so much guilty conscience that they, those Zionists, can then get away with theft and murder, which they have done in a sense up to now in Palestine.
Understand that Nazi racism was and is no more acceptable than Zionist supremacism. Yes, the Zionists are supremacists/racists. Anyone who has looked into the results of Zionist polling and the policies and practices of the Zionists knows this. Their leadership has historically been loaded with racists and ethnic bigots. That continues right up to the present with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman and others.
Obama also stated that the Palestinians should not declare themselves a state via the United Nations — the same approached used by the Zionists but never ratified by the Security Council. Ratification by the Security Council was required to make Israel legitimate under international law. It never happened.
Barack doesn't mention the un-democratic nature of a Jewish state whether or not built upon stolen land, which it has been. He thinks he can ignore such things. He cannot. He cannot for the very reasons he gave for why the dictators in the Middle East and North Africa and elsewhere cannot ignore the voices of the people: Universal rights. Barack Obama is making that mistake I mentioned above, which is being inconsistent/hypocritical.
He mentions the shared values the US has with "Israel." What shared values does America have with Zionism? Plainly and simply, Zionism is elitist. In the same speech, Obama criticized such elitism.
One of the worst things he said in the speech is that the US will stand against attempts to single out Israel for criticism in international forums. Israel is singularly unique right now in the world for its supremacism. What other UN member state has an official policy of ethnic supremacism? There is nothing on par with it. Of course Israel must be singled out. Anything short of that is being in denial, as the psychologists have termed the condition. Obama is in denial.
Does he not know that we are not stupid? He does not have the authority to stop people from speaking the uncomfortable truth that Zionism has gone about stealing the land and murdering, terrorizing, brutalizing, imprisoning, and destroying the Palestinians due to Zionist-Jew covetousness. Zionism has come to be a dirty word to right-minded people the world over. It has been abused by the likes of that fascist Avigdor Lieberman and others who wouldn't know real Zionism if it were right in front of them.
Barack Obama even said it: "...the dream of a Jewish and democratic state." This is an oxymoron (Jewish democratic state) when democratic means democratic as used by the vast majority of Americans. How could there be an Anglo-Saxon democratic state in the United States unless those Anglo-Saxons had been as stubbornly supremacist as the political-Zionist Jews are being right now, whom Barack Obama has just sworn to protect from singled-out criticism in international forums?
Gee, I think I'll just go move some American Indians out of their houses and take their land because God gave it to me. Well, if I were to do that, it would be Satan giving me that land, not the God of righteousness. If you don't know that, you're spiritually moronic.
American military personnel are being told that it is their job to protect that Jewish state? What other ethnocracies are they supposed to protect with their lives? How is that America can have such hypocritical foreign and domestic agendas? It's a crime! It's embarrassing. It's a shame and sham.
As a Christian, I read The Bible. It tells me in places to be subservient to the likes of Barack Obama. However, at the same time in other places, it tells me and the Holy Spirit moves me to speak out against evil. There are arguments in The Bible. There are different streams of consciousness and conscience. The prophets, including Jesus Christ, spoke out. They were not silently subservient.
Now there is good government and there is bad government. I do not speak against good government, ever. I like good government. I love good government. Law and order are terrific things. The issue is not whether or not. The issue is what kind is good. Lawlessness is a disaster. Laissez faire (let do) is a disaster. Self-control, having the law written in the mind and on the heart is the best government, of course. In that case, there is no coercion. There are just actions and temporary versus eternal consequences.
Barack Obama is grievously mistaken for a whole host of reasons going to the root of his being. He said many right things in his speech. However, unless properly countered, the errors will hugely retard the whole of humanity.
The Zionists are wrong. They were wrong from the start. Their enterprise is a failure. The US should not be speaking with a forked tongue at all and in the way Barack Obama is speaking — telling people to aspire to representational democracies that respect equal and universal rights regardless of ethnicity or religion, etc., while telling the world that the Zionists are the only entity on Earth exempted from the international standards. The double-mindedness is glaringly stark. It sticks out like the huge and festering cancer that it is.
He thought he had a great speech that finessed its way through the minefield of thoughtful people. He was wrong, very wrong. We are not bamboozled. We are not mesmerized. We see the glaring and evil double-standards and summarily reject them. His positions will not stand. They cannot. Such false heartedness will not prevail.
The Zionist-Jews are not going to get their wicked way. They will receive their comeuppance. The US will side with what is right in this matter or it too will suffer the negative consequences. Simply speaking the truth will see to it. I won't lift a finger against America. It's not my way. It's not my calling. I'm opposed to coercion. The US will suffer on account of Satan being let loose upon them by them. Evil begets evil.
Resist it in your mind and heart but not with violence.
The US has already been suffering the consequences of many, many wrong decisions for many decades, even centuries, now. President Barack Obama isn't making things better enough or soon enough. He's not leading. He constantly has to be dragged into saying the right things, taking the right or at least better positions.
At least he listened when told to simply show his birth certificate. I know I was told that it wouldn't work, but it did.
On the whole, his speech was very bad. Frankly, on policy, I give it an F. Make the whole tree good, Mr. Obama. Make the whole tree good.
Obama said, "...everyone knows...a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples — Israel as a Jewish state and a homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people." What that does is concede to exactly what the Balfour Declaration and the Zionists' Israel Declaration of Independence/Statehood decried and forswore: Discrimination against the Arab Palestinians. It rewards duplicity, theft, war crimes, terrorism, crimes against humanity, and on and on. It is disgusting to hear a US President still giving such a reprehensible speech as representative of the American people who voted him into office.
Obama first told Israel that he would defend Israel. He said the US can't impose upon Israel. Is the US forced to defend Israel with violence no matter what evil Israel does? Why? What power does Israel have over the US? It's not moral power. It has to be something other than what is moral. It has to be wicked.
Barack Obama said he believes the outcome should be a racist-Zionist state based upon the 1967 Green Line with mutually agreed swaps of land. What a weak position he has set up for the US so the US doesn't have to do a thing to uphold righteousness.
He is afraid of the Zionists. He's afraid of their money and their members in the US legislature. He is afraid to buck them for fear of upsetting the system that the Zionists have built up around much of the world. He doesn't have what it takes to take it directly to the American people to make happen what ought to happen, that which is righteous for the Palestinians and the Jews, which would be one state guaranteeing all the things Obama stated the Arabs in Egypt and elsewhere should aspire to.
He even went so far as to say that Israel may be highly militarized enough to fight off anyone while the planned Palestinian state must be non-militarized. Now that's just more inequality. How can Palestine be the only nation on the face of the Earth that isn't allowed to have a military because nations on the outside have said so? What with the way the various police forces around the globe but especially in the US have been militarized with their military-style SWAT teams, how would Palestine be held to this non-militarized standard? I'm not advocating militarization. I'm opposed to it everywhere. I'm asking where the equality is in this idea that the Zionist-Jews must be heavily militarized while the people from whom they've stolen their lands and homes and destroyed their olive groves, etc., can have no such weaponry? It's disgusting on its face.
Who's afraid of what? The racist/land-thieving Zionists are afraid that a militarized Palestine might want to retake stolen Palestinian land.
One state based upon the universal rights Obama spoke about would solve that. The whole supposed reason for a Jewish state would become moot in that one state. The Jews in America have not been much persecuted! Many of those American Jews though have funded the Zionists in Israel as they brutalize the Palestinians who did nothing wrong to those Zionists to precipitate the Zionist terrorism other than be on the land those Zionists coveted.
I reject Barack Obama's proposals for Palestine. They are extremely lopsided and would reward the thieves, murderers, and rapists for their decades-long conspiracies and crimes.
I'm not for punishing the Zionists but for simply having them live as neighbors with others as Jews in America live as neighbors to non-Jews. I would that they would all repent and convert too, but they must start somewhere. Giving up their wicked Zionist Project is a big start in the right direction.
After lying that everyone knows (agrees) that the two-state idea is the only viable one, he turned around and again spoke in lofty terms about people freeing themselves from tyranny — while the Palestinians have been and are suffering under Zionist, racist, ethnically bigoted tyranny, if those Zionists can even be rightly called an ethnic group.
What Barack Obama did was regurgitate the Clinton Administration's failed positions — little wonder, since Hillary Clinton is his Secretary of State.
What he failed to say is that the US will not stand by an Israel that oppresses the Palestinians. He did not say to the Zionists that they must come to the realization that the whole world is now for the right of Palestinians to return to their ancestral lands, as understood by the Balfour Declaration that called for a homeland for the Jews but not one that was prejudicial against the Arabs already living in Palestine.
Let me wrap up here by briefly addressing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Until the best law on the local level is extended to the whole planet, humanity will be living in hypocrisy. Whatever Osama bin Laden did or didn't do, he stated many true grievances that could have been and should have been addressed by the US.
Obama says that Iran's nuclear program is illicit, but he has given no proof to substantiate his accusation. Likewise, Osama bin Laden was never shown to have been responsible for 9/11. He never took credit for it. He was on the FBI Most Wanted List but for other than 9/11. More importantly though is that if any of his numerous grievances were justified, then he was attacking an enemy engaged in evil. I disagreed with bin Laden's tactics. The US though should never have done all the things concerning which bin Laden complained.
Now, what's the world to be like and how long will it take to get there? I for one do not want to live in a nation where to board an airplane or train or bus or drive down the road or walk along the sidewalk or enter a building or whatever, I must do anything any differently than I did when I was a five-year-old. That's not being unrealistic. It's a matter of properly redressing grievances around the world and promoting the right psychology rather than this spirit of violence and vengeance and theft, etc.
The only way to get the world to be the best locally that is it anywhere is to simply start expecting it and acting accordingly. If Miranda Rights are right for anyone at anytime, then they are right for everyone all the time, including Osama bin Laden.
Had he declared war on the US? If his fatwahs were his own, then he did. What law though are we to live by? Shooting him dead unarmed rather than knocking him out with a tranquilizer dart and bringing him to justice to a fair and speedy trial says that the US can lie about anyone and then shoot him dead with impunity.
Within the US, we have the Bill of Rights because our people don't implicitly trust our government. Why is that same government to be trusted when it comes to international relations, especially in the absence of safeguards such as an international Bill of Rights enforced globally?
Where we really need to be is where punishment is not the way but rather where everyone is raised up to do what's right and does it. It's a decision. It's a quantum-leap decision. It needs to be out there. That's why I've said it. It sets the bar high where it ought to be.
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)