President Barack Obama's authorization of air strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq serves as an opportunity to remind ourselves which countries are bankrolling the deadly terror group.
There's a great deal of truth in what Lee Ann McAdoo and Alex Jones are saying, but I'm not buying it that Barack Obama isn't more inept than not. Lee Ann seems to want to say it.
I'm gathering that possibility from her complaint that Obama drones people he shouldn't and then holds back when dealing with pure evil. Exactly how much of that she attributes to Obama's ineptitude versus what Alex is alleging (a smoke screen with a bit of wrist slapping) remains unclear.
Contrary to Alex's assertion, splitting Iraq was not the plan. It was always obvious that there were at least three main regions, and Joe Biden suggested that deliberately splitting Iraq that way would likely head off what's happening now; but Joe's idea was shot down. Alex is just wrong that the US had to cause all of what's happened in order to split Iraq. Splitting Iraq could have been done by US decree long ago, long before the US began to wind down there. If it had been the plan, it would have happened long before now.
We knew before the war that Saddam was a strongman keeping a lid on sectarianism. We knew that about Libya and Syria too. Egypt has come full circle.
If you recall, the claim was that the US wanted Iraq's oil and Libya's oil. Look at the mess and the fact that the US has turned its back for the most part. This is why I say it's been as much gross ineptitude as anything else.
George W. Bush forced the de-Baathification of Iraq. He was heavily criticized during that process for it. It was a stupid move. Obama inherited that but managed it very poorly, just as he's handled foreign policy in general.
The fact of the matter is, he's not very bright. He's weak and more indecisive than may appear. He's easily bullied and cowed by the Zionists, the neocons.
Why Vladimir Putin has allowed him to slaughter Russian civilians and destroy their cities in Eastern Ukraine has perplexed many, including the Russians in Eastern Ukraine. What's the difference with what happened in Georgia and South Ossetia? Would Putin not have rolled into South Ossetia to save the Russians there had he been the President at the time? I'm not counting him out, but he sure appeared to tuck tail over night. He said he would not allow the ethnic Russians in Ukraine to be trampled and slaughtered. Well, they've been greatly trampled upon. Thousands have been murdered and their homes and other buildings destroyed. It's not been unlike what's happened in Gaza, except the Israelis out gun the Ukrainian military and Gaza is such an easy, almost completely defenseless, target.
Of course, I'm analyzing all of this from the secular perspective. I'm actually opposed to all of the militarism.
"Ukrainians flee war horrors, Kiev warns of final countdown for Donetsk & Lugansk":
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)