Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Church: Anti-war sermon imperils tax status

Originally Posted by AP & CNN

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service has warned a prominent liberal church it could lose its tax-exempt status because of an anti-war sermon a guest preacher gave on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, church officials say.

The Rev. George F. Regas did not urge parishioners at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena to support either President Bush or John Kerry, but he was critical of the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts.

The IRS warned the church in June that its tax-exempt status was in jeopardy because such organizations are prohibited from intervening in political campaigns and elections...

The IRS has revoked a church's charitable designation at least once.

A church in Binghamton, New York, lost its status after running advertisements against Bill Clinton's candidacy before the 1992 presidential election.

I wouldn't think isolating religion from politics this way would be pushed during a Republican administration. I could possibly see a ban on spending religious charity money on candidate centered adds, but trying to censor what is being said from the pulpit on moral issues sounds funky. Churches can't resist war? If the Democrats take the White House, could they use the IRS to prevent sermons on the Right to Choose?

I don't like seeing the IRS getting into the censorship business. If they do start threatening tax status of churches who preach on politicized issues, I would certainly hope the issues censored do not become associated with the party line of whomever is in power.

There's a big diference between running an anti-candidate ad during an election and presenting a sermon criticizing a War and regressive taxes.


Of course, the Christian Coalition lost their tax-exempt status and have not suffered too greatly. The CC of Alabama only seems to crawl out from under their rock to moan about taxes.

Originally Posted by scott 63

There's a big difference between running an anti-candidate ad during an election and presenting a sermon criticizing a War and regressive taxes.

Of course, the Christian Coalition lost their tax-exempt status and have not suffered too greatly. The CC of Alabama only seems to crawl out from under their rock to moan about taxes.

Agreed. It doesn't seem like too big a deal for religious groups to spin off political auxiliaries. Could one pass the basket twice, collecting once for building maintenance, clergy salary and charity, a second taxable time for political action?

But I'm having trouble envisioning a Blue President trying to tell the Catholic Church to stop preaching against the Right to Choose or lose tax status. There ought to be some line. Not sure where the line should be. I am sure the line shouldn't change every time someone new gets into the White House. Tax status requirements should not shift with the political winds.

Originally Posted by Urs Gehriger in [i

Die Weltwoche[/i] (BDR)]His letters were usually signed "al-Gharib" – the stranger. "His personality changed completely," says one fellow inmate. "He did a lot of thinking and came to the conclusion that Islam needs strong leaders." After several years in prison, Zarqawi declared his belief in the Manichean notion of the existence of two worlds: that of the devout Salafi Muslims and that of the "kufar", the unbelievers, among whom he also counted those Muslims who collaborate with the Israeli and American enemies. "No kufar", Zarqawi told one fellow prisoner, "deserves to live."


...Saif al-Adel rejoiced over the "great progress". And noted a remarkable transformation in Zarqawi himself: "By the start of 2001, Abu Musab had become a different person." Talkative, interested in high-level politics, he had even developed an understanding for public relations. He now made a "much more convincing" overall impression. He had begun to think about the future and to plan it strategically – "all of which are indicators for the emergence of an outstanding leadership figure".

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: From green man to guru
A portrait of Iraq's most-wanted terrorist. Part one.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: In the network of the phantom
A portrait of Iraq's most-wanted terrorist. Part two

Originally Posted by Urs Gehriger and Marwan Shehadeh

Driven by Zarqawi's enthusiasm, even close associates are prepared to
die for him.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: "It's simple, very simple."A portrait of Iraq's most-wanted terrorist. Part three.

Originally Posted by Urs Gehriger

Few attacks of any scale in Iraq are not recorded on film. Soon after,
the "reportage" is already available online. The fighter hurries with
the film to a computer and uploads it to one of the dozens of jihad
websites. "For a 15-second clip, the whole upload process takes half an
hour," says Kohlmann, "no more than that."

Kohlmann compares the Zarqawi clips with U.S. Army promotional films
used by recruiting officers on their tours of American high schools. In
both cases, war is sold as an adventure and a service to society. The
Americans use aircraft carriers sailing into the sunset, daring
commando operations and proud officers in stiff uniforms and polished
boots. Zarqawi uses martyrs blowing themselves sky high, to a
soundtrack of warlike chanting and verses from the Koran recited in a
deep vibrato. Some of the propaganda material is produced in Saudi
Arabia. But the producers and webmasters are not limited by
geographical borders. They could be anywhere, in the Middle East, in
Europe, Asia. "But the grotesque thing," says Kohlmann, "is that the
servers for these terror websites are here in America, in North
Carolina for example."

Kohlmann is sure that Western society is a long way from comprehending
this new phenomenon. In his view, there are three huge obstacles to be
overcome. Firstly, the propaganda material is all in Arabic, "a
language that almost no one here speaks." Secondly, the West has hardly
any understanding of the mentality and culture of the Islamists.
Thirdly, "and this is a real tragedy," there are few experts who are
familiar with the techniques of cyber-war. "Of course, there's no
shortage of clever young technology freaks, but in the U.S. government,
of all places, such people are absent."

Originally Posted by UG

Zarqawi is the opposite of bin Laden. Not from a privileged
background. Uneducated. Crude. Impulsive. In spite of this, it may not
be long before he outstrips the Saudi Prince of Terror. With violence,
but also with his sharp instinct for propaganda.

Will he be bin Laden's successor? At present, the two appear to
complement each other. Bin Laden is the spiritual leader and provides
the global strategy, Zarqawi is the general at the front. But the
uncompromising Zarqawi could risk a power struggle. The Jordanian knows
that history is on his side. The dynamic of revolution always favours
the most radical fractions – the Jacobins over the Girondists; the
Bolsheviks over the Mensheviks. In this light, Zarqawi could be the man
of the future.

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

Like Marxists, indeed, and like many of his European friends, George Bush appears to believe both that freedom is an ineluctable "force of history" and also that it requires constant struggle to achieve it. *He argues, like Hegel, Marx’s precursor, that humanity is one, and that a free state like the USA is not really free if other states live under tyranny. In his mind, old-fashioned American Puritan millenarianism marries easily with the missionary mentality of world revolutionists: *"The survival of liberty in our land," he said in January, "increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." *A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

Full Marx for George Bush

Originally Posted by JL

Revolution has now become a completely positive word in the Western political lexicon. Fifteen years ago, it still carried – at least for conservatives – the negative connotations of "Bolshevik," "sexual" and "French." *Not any more. *The myth of revolution now wields such a strong hold over our collective consciousness that, with the compulsiveness of children who beg to be re-told the same story, we regularly accept at face value fairy tales about revolutions in a faraway country of which we know nothing. Being tabula rasa for us, these countries are the perfect backdrop on which to project our own fantasies: these tales invariably follow the same formulaic sequence, in which a dishonest or authoritarian or brutal regime is overthrown by "people power," and everyone lives happily ever after.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

In this regard I am in full agreement, which might put me at odds with the present administration, but much more so with the liberals around here.

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

In this regard I am in full agreement, which might put me at odds with the present administration, but much more so with the liberals around here.

Liberals also see plenty of evil, but most are unwilling to be cowed by it. It's better to improve what you can affect. Often responding to evil just creates more evil, or disgusting behavior at the very least. Look at Bush trying to fight evil with evil for a trenchant example.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

In this regard I am in full agreement, which might put me at odds with the present administration, but much more so with the liberals around here.

Liberals also see plenty of evil, but most are unwilling to be cowed by it. It's better to improve what you can affect. Often responding to evil just creates more evil, or disgusting behavior at the very least. Look at Bush trying to fight evil with evil for a trenchant example.

The disagreement I referred to IRT liberals was that of daring to see evil in the outside world, instead of solely in your own land and people.

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

In this regard I am in full agreement, which might put me at odds with the present administration, but much more so with the liberals around here.

Those with absolute value systems tend to be expansionist, and willing to use force and coercion to impose their values on others. The old Agricultural Age monarchists barely needed an excuse to start a war of aggression. The fascists were no better. The Communists faced democratic alliances firmly dedicated to holding them at bay, but thought their value system inevitably superior, and for a time awaited a world wide revolution that would put them in power globally.

Relativistic value systems are more apt to tolerate diversity. Balance between competing powers or values is much more acceptable. In an Enlightenment based free society, checks between labor and management, legislature, executive and court, even capitalism and communism are acceptable. The balanced dialectic is normal. The proper way to deal with conflicting forces is to allow each to check the other, rather than the total destruction of one side. There is a tolerance in relativistic values not found in autocratic cultures. Solidarity and the Communist Party could not coexist. One or the other had to fall. Such would not be the case in the West.

The difference is between Conquest and Containment. The authoritarian absolute world view says one's own values are correct, anyone who disagrees must be evil, evil must be destroyed. The democratic relativistic world view allows self defense. Rivals have a right to exist. If each culture is allowed to practice their own values, in the long run the better value system will attract more followers. Thus, autocratic cultures are more apt to practice aggression and conquest. Relativistic cultures are more apt to practice containment, freedom and choice.

The Bush 43 administration is a highly conservative faction within a highly progressive civilization. They walk the line between authoritarian and relativistic values. They are a bit more eager to spread their value system by force than I would like. Modern liberal democracy does need to defend itself. Should any nation and people be eager to modernize their economy, culture or political systems, modern liberal democracy might well provide assistance.

Imposing culture change by force is tricky. The Union, in attempting to force modern values on the South after the Civil War, didn't have the will or patience to do it right. I am doubtful it will be any easier, our will any stronger, in modern times. If we are unlikely to succeed in forced culture change, I would be reluctant to start. The result is often not worthy of the blood price. The culture in question would have to be aggressive and expansionist enough to give no choice. Containing aggressive autocratic militaristic cultures is as prudent today as it was during the Cold War. Assisting a people in achieving what they want to achieve would be the more prudent -- I almost used the word 'conservative' -- option.

And, sorry, but the best way to contain the most dangerous, aggressive, authoritarian, absolutist, expansionist culture at this point is to vote Democratic.

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

In this regard I am in full agreement, which might put me at odds with the present administration, but much more so with the liberals around here.

Liberals also see plenty of evil, but most are unwilling to be cowed by it. It's better to improve what you can affect. Often responding to evil just creates more evil, or disgusting behavior at the very least. Look at Bush trying to fight evil with evil for a trenchant example.

The disagreement I referred to IRT liberals was that of daring to see evil in the outside world, instead of solely in your own land and people.

I only know personally one liberal who seems to believe that America is more evil than its enemies... an aging Boomer hippie co-worker of mine who wears his hair long, bathes infrequently, and "never sold out". Just one. That says less about liberals in general than it does about many conservatives.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I only know personally one liberal who seems to believe that America is more evil than its enemies... an aging Boomer hippie co-worker of mine who wears his hair long, bathes infrequently, and "never sold out". Just one. That says less about liberals in general than it does about many conservatives.

Vancouver, Washington? That's where he got to? The conservatives are so obsessed with the classic hippie stereotype, I just knew the Platonic Ideal Hippie just had to still exist somewhere. :wink:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

In this regard I am in full agreement, which might put me at odds with the present administration, but much more so with the liberals around here.

Liberals also see plenty of evil, but most are unwilling to be cowed by it. It's better to improve what you can affect. Often responding to evil just creates more evil, or disgusting behavior at the very least. Look at Bush trying to fight evil with evil for a trenchant example.

The disagreement I referred to IRT liberals was that of daring to see evil in the outside world, instead of solely in your own land and people.

I only know personally one liberal who seems to believe that America is more evil than its enemies... an aging Boomer hippie co-worker of mine who wears his hair long, bathes infrequently, and "never sold out". Just one. That says less about liberals in general than it does about many conservatives.

Is that your supervisor, hon? The one who actually went to work on the official day of mourning for Ronald Reagan, even though the entire Feeral government shut down?

Gosh, about the part of him bathing infrequently, gross! When I met him, he didn't strike me as grody. :shock:

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

Readin's hard.

The self inflicted wound of the Democrat Party

Unlike George Bush, We Should Honor Our Veterans

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Laughland

A true conservative, by contrast, would say that there is much evil in the outside world – and that the duty of a statesman is to hold it at bay.

In this regard I am in full agreement, which might put me at odds with the present administration, but much more so with the liberals around here.

Liberals also see plenty of evil, but most are unwilling to be cowed by it. It's better to improve what you can affect. Often responding to evil just creates more evil, or disgusting behavior at the very least. Look at Bush trying to fight evil with evil for a trenchant example.

The disagreement I referred to IRT liberals was that of daring to see evil in the outside world, instead of solely in your own land and people.

I only know personally one liberal who seems to believe that America is more evil than its enemies... an aging Boomer hippie co-worker of mine who wears his hair long, bathes infrequently, and "never sold out". Just one. That says less about liberals in general than it does about many conservatives.

Is that your supervisor, hon? The one who actually went to work on the official day of mourning for Ronald Reagan, even though the entire Feeral government shut down?

Gosh, about the part of him bathing infrequently, gross! When I met him, he didn't strike me as grody. :shock:

Um... no, not my supervisor, hon. My boss is a great guy, very professional. I'm talking about another co-worker, a GS-11... which is probably why he isn't a GS-12. But at least he didn't sell out!

- - -

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Dems Plan for Iraq...

Reid Outlines Way Forward in Iraq, Previews Democrats Iraq Amendment

Monday, November 14, 2005

Washington, D.C. – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the following remarks at a press conference today with Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Carl Levin.

Remarks as prepared:

“Our troops deserve a strategy in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. That is why, for three years, Democrats have pushed the White House to lay out a plan for success.

“Unfortunately, the President has rejected our call, and instead, insisted America needs to “stay the course.” With more than 2,050 Americans killed… more than $250 billion spent… and no end in sight after three years of war -- “staying the course” is no longer an option.

“Together, we can do better. Democrats have developed a very clear path forward. There are three areas we believe need to be addressed:

* First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.

* Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.

* Third, the President needs to submit – on a quarterly basis - a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.

“Apparently, Republicans have agreed this is the approach we need to take, as they have essentially accepted our amendment.

“It cannot be understated that by accepting our amendment, both the Republican leader and the chairman of the Armed Services committee agree that the administration needs to come forward and explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for success and completing the mission.

“It’s not easy for the President to admit mistakes. It’s a lot easier for him to lash out at those who question his policies, but political attacks are not going to get the job done. Our troops have done their job. It’s time for the President and this Republican-controlled Congress to do theirs.”

###

UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ ACT

Getting Answers to the American People on the War in Iraq

For too long, the Bush administration has failed to lay out a clear strategy for success in Iraq to the American people. Their rosy statements about the progress of the war are not matched by the conditions on the ground. In their few appearances before the Congress, the Secretaries of Defense and State have failed to answer the most basic questions about our progress in the war or provide even the simplest benchmarks by which the American people could measure our progress. Democrats are offering an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that holds the Administration accountable for its actions and requires it to present a real plan for success.

DEMOCRATS OFFER THE FOLLOWING ASSESMENT ABOUT THE WAR:

Our troops and their families deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people for their service and sacrifice. The Administration has said that as the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down. Democrats believe we should see a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty in 2006 so that our troops can begin coming home. We also believe the Iraqi people must understand that the U.S. military will not stay in Iraq indefinitely; they must achieve the political stability necessary to defeat the insurgency.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MUST PROVIDE A PLAN:

It is essential that the Bush administration submit an unclassified strategy for success in Iraq to the Congress and the American people specifying how and when our troops can begin coming home.

An Assessment of the Bush Administration’s Actions to Achieve Progress in Iraq. The Bush administration must provide information on its efforts to convince Iraq’s communities to make the necessary compromises for a political settlement; efforts to engage the international community to help stabilize Iraq; efforts to strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s government ministries; efforts to accelerate the delivery of basic services; and efforts to train Iraqi security forces so those forces can protect Iraq on their own.

An Assessment of the Compromises Made by the Iraqi People to Achieve the Broad-Based and Sustainable Political Settlement.

An Unclassified Report to Congress and the American People. The Bush administration has classified most significant information about their Iraq war plans and kept that information from the Congress. The President should submit to the Congress and the American people an unclassified plan for success in Iraq. We deserve to know the conditions we seek to establish, the challenges we face in achieving these conditions, and the progress we are making. This report should also include:

* The number of Iraqi battalions that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in counterinsurgency operations

* The number of Iraqi special police units that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in policing

* The number of regular police that must be trained and equipped

* The ability of Iraq’s Federal ministries and provincial and local governments to independently sustain, direct and coordinate Iraq’s security forces

The Benchmarks for Success. The Bush administration must also provide benchmarks by which their success can be measured. This includes the criteria by which to measure the progress being made and a schedule for meeting these conditions.

A Plan for Bringing Our Troops Home. As it lays out a clear strategy with benchmarks, the Bush administration must also provide a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

Tee-hee. I needed a laugh this morning what with the coming Winter storms. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Onion


Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq

Originally Posted by NY[i

T[/i]]WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

:lol: :lol: :lol: The Red/Blue Humor Machine seems to have been engaged.

What liberal Q!$#%*@@ pantywaist had this to say?

As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur

And when did he say it?
And what was the WH reaction?!

- Senator Taft
- December 19,1941 (12 days after Pearl Harbor)
- None

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=10618

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." G.W.Bush 11/11/05

Originally Posted by salsabob

- Senator Taft
- December 19,1941 (12 days after Pearl Harbor)
- None

But that was different. At that time we had a president who was physically crippled but mentally sharp.

Originally Posted by Sen. Chuck Hagel

The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.

"U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East"

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by salsabob

- Senator Taft
- December 19,1941 (12 days after Pearl Harbor)
- None

But that was different. At that time we had a president who was physically crippled but mentally sharp.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Sen. Chuck Hagel

The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.

"U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East"

Elegant
- From Webster: Combining simplicity, power, and a certain ineffable grace of design. Higher praise than "clever" or "winning."