Many conservatives are absolutely right that preachers have the right to endorse candidate and promote political causes (whether these clergymen embrace a left, right, center, or independent perspective). Preachers who politically promote candidates (whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents) are no threat or danger to America at all. A pluralist society is a reality in America. If you want to live in America, you have to accept that. There are many religions here, there are those who are atheists, and those who are agnostics. Many different groups exist here like Scientologists, Hindus, and other types of human beings. LBJ was one figure that caused the muzzling of many churches. He helped to pass a law which states that any nonprofit church shouldn’t promote a certain point of view (that promoted or opposed a candidate). This new law violated the First Amendment. The admonition of a candidate by a preacher isn’t immoral at all. This doesn’t mean that a church or a Pope is infallible. No human is infallible except God. The First Amendment is clear that Congress can’t make a law that abridges the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion. This means that the government can’t create a law to restrict religious liberty rights of people inside of a religious building. This is why long ago, many abolitions spoke in the church to oppose slavery and condemn pro-slavery politicians. This is why preachers centuries ago spoke out against the oppression and injustices of the Roman Empire. That is why civil rights leaders in the USA spoke in the church opposing racist politicians by name during the 1950’s and the 1960’s. So, these actions of preachers opposing candidates have a legitimate historical track record. That is why it’s completely right for a preacher in the pulpit to publicly oppose the candidate Bull Connor when he was a local police chief. Churches’ tax exempt status shouldn’t be restricted if they have exercised their full religious expression rights. The expression of the marketplace of ideas is needed not less in order to promote freedom.
Indefinite detention is immoral. Yet, some still want this concept to be legalized in America. People are still struggling economically, emotionally, and socially. Millions of jobs have been lost. There have been foreclosures, incomes lost, and futures potentially ruined. Evil, draconian police state provisions are a reality in America. Even FEMA have made policies of making camps to hold people. Martial law may be utilized as a means to suppress liberties as well. This policy of harming innocent human beings to be placed in camps doesn’t lack precedent. During WWII, innocent Japanese Americans were detained. Today, dissenters may be in risk of being detained. The House in December 14 passed the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). On December 15, the Senate followed suit – ironically on Bill of Rights Day. The President seems to desire to sign the law. The bill will end constitutional protections for all U.S. citizens. The reason is that NDAA directly attacks due process and law enforcement powers. Little evidence can be generated to arrest citizens if the bill becomes law. Militaries exist to protect nations from foreign threats. Its Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies solely to its own personnel as authorized under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, stating that: “...The Congress shall have Power….To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.” The FBI and the Justice Department have worked with local and state police to finish criminal investigations and prosecutions. This relates to alleged national security concerns. Now, this bill can allow the military arrest and detain anyone if they are suspected of “terrorism” (under controversial means). Law Professor Jonathan Turley has expressed outrage about the NDAA bill. Indefinite detention of citizen is so bad that the Founding Fathers definitely abhorred it. Civil courts can handle habeas corpus, due process, and other legal rights. Military tribunals are constitutionally illegal. In Result v. Bush (June 2004), the Court granted Guantanamo detainees habeas rights to challenge their detentions in civil court. Congress responded with the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), subverting the ruling. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that federal courts retain jurisdiction over habeas cases. It said that Guantanamo Bay military commissions lack “the power to proceed because (their) structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions (of) 1949.” Congress responded to the ruling by passing the immoral Military Commissions Act or MCA. The MCA gave the administration huge unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, torture, and prosecute alleged terrorist suspects, enemy combatants, or anyone claimed to support them. The President under the MCA can call (under certain circumstances) anyone an unlawful enemy combatant and empowers him to arrest and detain them indefinitely in military prisons (even U.S. citizens). The law states: “no (civil) court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever….relating to the prosecution, trial or judgment of….military commission(s)….including challenges to (their) lawfulness….” The Supreme Court opposed parts of the MCA in 2008. In Boumediene v. Bush, it ruled that Guantanamo detainees retain habeas rights. MCA unconstitutionally subverts them. As a result, the administration has no legal authority to deny them due process in civil courts or act as accuser, trial judge and executioner with no right of appeal or chance for judicial fairness. Nonetheless, Section 2031 of the FY 2010 NDAA contained the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA). The phrase “unprivileged enemy belligerent” replaced “unlawful enemy combatant.” Language changed but not intent or lawlessness to assume police state powers. So far, military commissions haven’t tried Americans. Henceforth, based on alleged national security concerns, they will be under draconian FY 2012 NDAA provisions. Even Jose Padilla (an American citizen) was tortured, dehumanized, and denied due process when he was held over 3.5 years in military plus confinement. Bradley Manning is having a similar case of detainment over his alleged revealing of information via Wikileaks. This is nothing new. During 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was passed in response to the OKC bombing. It eased surveillance and death penalty restricted, it eroded habeas protection, and smoothed the way for repressive measures to follow. After 9/11, more anti-civil liberties laws have proliferated. Many constitutional protected have been eliminated. The NDAA can destroy the 5th and 14th Amendments in terms of due process rights. The Fifth Amendment says that a citizen can’t be held without indictment of a grand jury (and you can’t be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law). The 14th Amendment says that anyone born or naturalized in America is an American citizen (these rights can’t be stripped by the state at all). Tyranny is being promoted by the 112th Congress. People should promote power against oligarchy. Imperial lawlessness is wrong. Totalitarianism is wrong. Due process is pro-American.
Ron Paul is an interesting person. It’s proven by history and recent events that corporatism doesn’t work. We have monopolies and the elite are monopoly men. Monopolies prevent true free exercise of commerce and the development of infrastructure in the world. Now, there are people today that want to cut or get rid of the good things from the New Deal like the social safety net (like Social Security, Medicare, etc.). On many issues, Ron Paul is right. We should deal with the Federal Reserve in a critical manner. We should bring our troops home and oppose unjust wars. We should promote our civil liberties and ban the Patriot Act (and other oppressive laws). We should end completely the Drug War and use common sense alternatives to help those with drug addiction in a progressive, fair fashion. In this generation, many people from the Left and the Right have agreed on many issues like opposition to the NDAA and the love of the Bill of Rights. There are people like Cynthia McKinney, Kucinich, etc. who are breaking down the Left/Right paradigm that still is strong in America. Ron Paul is the best candidate in the Republican field since the other Republicans are in league with the reactionary movement. With that being said, he isn’t correct on all issues. Spending money can help people if you spend money to benefit human health, safety, and develop the domestic systems of this country like education. We have to have public involvement to improve our environment. Also, we should utilize means to protect labor rights among workers nationwide. Ron Paul wants to see land sold off national parks, which I don’t agree with at all. Not all regulations are evil regardless of what Paul says. We need protections against toxic waste in our water, we need clean air, and we need clean water. For voting, the Electoral College makes the ultimate decision for who is the next U.S. President plainly speaking. I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s pro-gold standard rhetoric (he said in March of 2001 that there is nothing to fear from a single, worldwide currency when that’s a violation of our national sovereignity) and on other issues. Even Jesus realized that money is issued by the government for the purpose of paying taxes as found in Matthew 22:19. Debt free money can work fine if it’s presented without interest (not shown via a private central banking system like the Federal Reserve. The FED is ruling America’s economic power). It is very taboo to talk about protectionism. It’s a curse word in some financial circles. I don’t believe in extremely restricting trade, but legitimate protections of our trade is fine. Ron Paul oppose waging war and having an overseas empire (which are good things to oppose) because he doesn’t believe that the government should do anything (except protect people’s rights, property, and liberty. That’s it). Also, Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act for libertarian reasons. The reality is that the state can oppress people's rights. That is why the FEDERAL Bill of Rights was created in order to protect people’s liberties (including the Civil Rights Act). To oppose civil rights federally and favor property rights is hypocritical. People are more important than property. Human rights shouldn’t be confined to states in 50 different interpretations. Human rights should be federally applied to promote the dignity, worth, and equality of all human beings irrespective of their background. The establishment media (from FOX, MSNBC, and CNN) loves Romney since he is a moderate man and he’s more of a token politician. They or the elite want a token to continue the status quo. One thing the corporate media hates is a radical and ironically you need a radical to solve our problems. It was the militant and radical people like Dr. King, Malcolm X, and others that changed greatly this country. Without radicalism, we won't have the Bill of Rights & Constitution period.
The Batman movie star Christian Bale was attacked in China, because he attempted to visit Chen Guangcheng. Chen is a blind man that is protesting against forced abortion policies in China. The Chinese authorities have forced him to have home confinement. The Chinese population planning officials want the one child policy in China to continue indefinitely. Bale was roughed up. He was forced away from Chen’s village. All of these events have been reported by CNN. Bale went into Beijing, China, because wanted to see the premier of “The Flowers of War.” That movie is a drama about the 1937 Rape of Nanjing. He tried to meet Chen independently. Chen exposed the sterilizations and forced abortions of thousands of innocent Chinese human beings. This story has been known by pro-life heroes for years. Chen was imprisoned via bogus charges within the span of four years. Chen was assaulted many times by family planning officials. He is still alive. About his attempt to visit Chen, Bale stated, “I’m not brave doing this . . . This was just a situation — I can’t look the other way.” “What I really wanted to do was shake the man’s hand and say ‘thank you,’ and tell him what an inspiration he is,” Bale said. Steven Jiang, a Chinese translator accompanying Bale, talked about what happened. Christian bale came into an impromptu checkpoint. This was near a tiny village in eastern China. 4 people came marching to him. Bale wanted to see Chen Guangcheng. The guards told him to go away. They pushed him and others back. More guards came with military style, olive green overcoats. “Why can I not visit this free man?” Bale asked repeatedly. Later, he was punched by guards. He tried to get his small cameras. A CNN team was thrown at by rocks when they tried to come into the same location 10 months ago. Gray minivans chased Bale and Steven’s car at a high speed. This occurred for about 40 minutes. The camera was damaged, a car was broken, and Bale was shocked to not see his hero. Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights without Frontiers, talked with Life News about bale’s attempt to see the human rights activist. “Christian Bale is right that the true heroes are the Chinese citizens who have been beaten and detained trying to visit Chen, and yet Bale is a hero as well. He is starring in the most expensive film ever made in China, which China hopes will win an Academy Award. Nevertheless, he has the courage to stand against official injustice and has greatly raised the visibility of Chen’s case,” she said. Bale wanted to present the story of Chen Guangcheng’s unjust treatment to the world. Relativity Media filmed 21 and Over in Linyi where Chen has been under home arrest. They didn’t help Chen. Reggie Littlejohn wants a boycott of the “21 and Over” movie. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke, and others have spoken up on the behalf of Chen Guangcheng. Other Chinese citizens try to visit Chen when they too risk beatings and detention. The international “Sunglasses” campaigns, have raised the visibility of Chen’s case as well. Chen Guangcheng exposed the systematic use of forced abortion and sterilization in Linyi City in 2005. For four years and three months, he was jailed, tortured and denied medical treatment. Since his release he has languished under strict house arrest.
The Muslim Brotherhood has a controversial history for decades. For years, people wanted a world currency by 2018. Globalization is one means of possibly causing this to occur. The NY Times reported on December 9 that 17 members of the EU using the euro want to have a new intergovernmental treaty This treaty will promote a fiscal union. The New York Times explained that “twenty years after the Maastricht Treaty, which was designed not just to integrate Europe but to contain the might of a united Germany, Berlin had effectively united Europe under its control….” Some people like Senator John McCain (back in March of 2011) believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is leading to extremism in the Middle East and North Africa (among their governments). The Islamists have won 65 percent of the vote. The MB Freedom and Justice Party taking 36.62 percent and the Salafists’s al Nur Party having 24.36 percent of the vote. The youth’s voices have been harmed in the election’s first round according to Egyptian Reformist Presidential hopeful (and pro-Western leader) Mohamed ElBaradei. The Islamists seem to possibly get most of the power in the new Egyptian government. The Daily Star (December 9) published an article indicating that on December 8, “The Muslim Brotherhood pulled out of an advisory council that the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had established to shape an appointed 100-member commission that will write a new Constitution. The Brotherhood believes the elected Parliament alone should appoint the commission, and sees the SCAF move as another attempt by the military to maintain its 60-year-old control of national power in Egypt.” The Muslim Brotherhood is made up of doctors, teachers, engineers, etc. They want Islam to have an influence to govern society. Some criticize the Muslim Brotherhood as wanting to make nations Muslim theocracies. 8 million Christian Copts have been oppressed and they don’t want the majority Islamists to win Egypt’s election. The Israelis believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will not have diplomatic relations with Israel (and they accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of having ties to Hamas). Libyan leader Mustafaa Adul-Jailil wants Sharia law to govern Libya. Sharia law said that there must be at least 4 witnesses for sex crimes like rape. This can cause a rape victim a serious time to seek justice. The al-Qaeda related rebels in Libya fought against Moammar Gaddafi and murdered him. It’s hypocritical for American leaders to support the execution of Gaddafi without a trial, but support the exaction of bin Laden without a trial (and his sons and one woman were executed by military forces and these people were unarmed). The Muslim Brotherhood is working in Tripoli and the Gaza Strip. The global elite love this revolution. The elite want more revolution in Syria. Posted on Britannia Radio October 22 by Barry Rubin is the following analysis regarding the leadership of the Syrian revolution: “I believe that the Turkish Islamist regime deliberately helped produce a Syrian leadership that is more Islamist and more Muslim Brotherhood-controlled than was necessary…. Of the 19 members of the General Secretariat whose names have been published, four are identified as Muslim Brotherhood and six more as independent Islamists.” And in “Europe seeks U.N. action against Syria; Brotherhood open to Turkish intervention…” (Al Arabiya News, November 17), one reads that “a leader of Syria’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Riad Shaqfa, in exile in Saudi Arabia, said the Syrian people would accept military intervention by Turkey rather than Western countries, to protect them from President Bashar al-Assad’s security forces.” Some accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of causing violence in Syria. Assad is a Shiite Muslim and most Syrians are Sunni including Turks. The war on terror has been a means to divide and conquer the Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the Middle Eastern region. Members of the Sunni-dominated Muslim Brotherhood are in opposition to the Shia Assad. Many Christians have left Egypt and even Iraq because of religious persecution. Some want America to protect the Christians since the persecution against Christians have been bad (like against the Copts. the president of the International Christian Union and the American Coptic Association, Monir A. Dawoud, has written a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking for the United States’ support in protecting the Copts, or Christians of Egypt, from the Muslim Brotherhood). I don’t agree with the war on terror, but I fight for my life to not let theocrats govern America (whether they profess to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever creed). The divide and conquer strategy in favor of revolution has been supported by Zbigniew Brzezinski (in his support of the exile of Ayatollah Khomeini under Carter. Brzezinski was the national security advisor for President Jimmy Carter) and President Barack Obama. The Sunni Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi has been an advisor to the MB. He wanted the NATO war crimes in Libya and he wants more revolution in Syria. Qaradawi believed that Turkey is a model that Arabic countries can benefit from. Qaradawi is the man trying to justify the Holocaust against Jews as some punishment. There are decent Jewish people and Arabic people in the world. It’s just that we have to expose extremists like Qaradawi, Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu, and those of the Muslim Brotherhood that seek reactionary causes instead of true peace.
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment