...Americans don't just like drone warfare — they love it. A Washington Post poll this February found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama's drone policy. (It's hard to think of anything that 83 percent of Americans agree on these days.) In addition, a whopping 77 percent of liberal Democrats support the use of drones — and 65 percent are fine with missile strikes against U.S. citizens....
That unnamed and unseen civilians may be getting killed in the process or that the attacks stretch the outer limits of statutory law are of less concern. Indeed, rare is the American war where such legal and humanitarian niceties mattered much to the electorate.
...nothing about the drone war should be a major surprise to the American people. Throughout the 2008 campaign, then-Sen. Obama was a loud, uncompromising advocate of ramping up cross-border drone attacks against al Qaida in Pakistan.
That just speaks volumes about the American people, at least the 83%. "humanitarian niceties" not murdering innocent by-standers, the old, the infirmed, young pregnant women, little children, babies? "niceties"?
No wonder the US has been going to Hell in a hand basket. No wonder there's been so much selfishness, greed, violence, and sexual depravity. No wonder evil is glorified by so many. No wonder people are eating each other's faces. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So if you don't want to be mercilessly attacked even if you are innocent of the particular offense, don't support the indiscriminate murder represented by Barack Obama's predator drones firing Hellfire missiles at wedding parties and such, where mere "suspects" are killed but so are known innocents.
Frankly, if you're one of the 83%, then when you are attacked, don't feign innocence. You're more than culpable. You make it possible via your support and compliance. You're as guilty of murder as Barack Obama is and all the others up and down his chain-of-command.
The "sanitation" of murder isn't fooling God. American comfort with joystick murder isn't acceptable.
The only thing standing between the wrath and America is less than 17%.
Oh yes, the Afghanis and Pakistanis have done much to offend as well, but heartlessness for heartlessness is not improving things.
What do you do when you hear the story of the Good Samaritan, not understand how decency could spread as opposed to all of this hardheartedness?
So, Obama brags about his cold, small, hard heart when it comes to making the calls. He asks the American people to wonder whether Mitt Romney would be equally callous rather than working to get at the root problems of the world that are all selfishness.
And you, what do you do, go ahead and buy into Bill Clinton's drivel that it's better to gain the easy center than it is to drag the whole toward greater righteousness?
Why be evil? There's nothing good in it.
Why has the US spent hundreds of billions of dollars on military counter-productive so-called solutions rather than apply that same amount of money to "humanitarian niceties"? The superrich behind the Military Industrial Complex who have the American people going along with the evil is the answer.
It isn't helping that the US murders with one hand and gives with the other. If America would have been giving with both hands, how long ago would war have left the planet?
Do you really think that Jesus would have been better off fighting back rather than going to the Cross sacrificing for the truth of real love?
Meanwhile, Obama gives speeches where he explains that were America a Christian nation, even the Pentagon probably wouldn't survive. He knows it wouldn't. He does that by way of steering Americans away from righteousness, as if not having a Pentagon would be a bad thing.
Put this on the front page of The New York Times if you have the courage.
And Michael A. Cohen ("Foreign Policy"; "Century Foundation"), author of the linked article, goes on about Iran as the enemy without even touching on the subject of whether or not Iran really does want nuclear weapons or is pursuing them.
As every intelligent person informed on the subject knows full well, there is zero evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet, about half the American voters are for attacking Iran with no evidence just because they are of the persuasion that it is better to murder the innocent than risk being wrong that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons. Some of them know there's no risk and still want to attack because they are evil imperialists through-and-through.
Even if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, why should Iran be considered more dangerous with them than any other nation that has them?
Actually, the whole thing is really about the Zionists and the US looking the other way while those Zionists continue stomping on the Palestinians, stealing their lands, not allowing them to build on their own lands, destroying their infrastructure, and on and on and on — endless excuses and subject changes, distractions, hiding behind the Old Testament while that testament shows the process of the people evolving spiritually, coming to realize that the very acts of the Zionists are anti-righteousness, who is God.
Wow, think about all of that from the outside looking in. How many people in the world wonder whether or not it would be better then to take out both the US and Israel before the US takes them out for nothing? The supposed fear of the Zionists is a cycle creating the reason for the fear in the first place. It's total insanity.
You know your neighbor has actively engaged his household in attacking your house and you and is openly calling for more and greater attacks because you have dual-use gasoline in your vehicle's tank and could be planning to use it to burn down his house. Now, don't you think your neighbor is insane and extremely dangerous and should be locked up so he can't harm others, even murder them? So, isn't Barack Obama insane and shouldn't the 83% be locked up so they can't harm others, even murder them by proxy?
Where's your heart? Where's your brain?
You don't believe me about Iran? Read this by Ray McGovern ("served as a CIA analyst for 27 years"): Iran's Nuclear Plants: Let's try to separate fact from fiction.
You know the Zionists lied and lied and lied and were forced to back off and to change their tune because of people who wouldn't back off demanding independently verified, genuine proof. They couldn't produce it, as I said all along would be the case. Be on the right side, not with the liars! It matters. Your soul is on the line.
Finally, if you're not for socialism because of various coercive leaders in the history of anti-capitalism, then be for voluntary socialism, which is Jesus's message. Understand though that, that message is not absent the message above about cause and effect over the long term, even eternity. Do you know what that means? If you aren't good, evil gets you. That's just how it is. That's the way of it.
Don't blame God. Blame yourself and evil. Gain higher enlightenment — higher than the traditional, common view of the Old Testament, per Jesus.
Freedom is not doing whatever the Hell you want without knowing what you ought to want and doing it.
Freedom is being free from evil. Liberty is being liberated from evil. Selfishness is the root of all evil.
When humanity comes to understand what the self is it will act accordingly and be free and not before. America is not now a free country or the leader of the "free world," far from it.
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)