The Saudis along with Libya supply about 60% of the foreign fighters that go into Iraq to fight against the U.S. occupation and to fight Shiites too. The Saudis just bought $20 billion worth of U.S. weapons. They sell the U.S. light crude oil to refine. They defend the U.S. dollar (somewhat). They keep a dictatorial lid on those within their kingdom who would not be so cooperative with the U.S. Empire. They help to keep Islam split into factions. They take kickbacks for business deals. They are a card (along with Egypt and Jordan and somewhat Pakistan) to play against the Jews in Israel. The list goes on.
The Iranians don't cozy up to the U.S., because the U.S. and Britain stepped on them in a 1953 coup that the Iranians haven't forgotten. The Saudis too have been stepped on, but they suck it up more than have the Iranians. Iranians overthrew the U.S. puppet dictator, and the U.S. imperialists have not forgotten for a second.
The Iranians are friendlier with Russia and China. They buy Russian and Chinese weapons. They trade oil in Euros now too. They just won't come under the sphere of influence of the U.S. They refuse to be dictated to.
The Israelis are being used by the U.S. (even while Israel uses the U.S.) as a front of sorts for U.S. longstanding hostility toward the breakaway Iranians. The Empire has a long memory even if it citizens are conditioned to have short attention spans.
Also, Shiites are a minority in Islam. They are dwarfed in numbers by the Sunnis. This makes it easier to pick on them without a larger Islamic backlash.
Even though the Saudis are sending huge quantities of foreign fighters into Iraq to fight the U.S. and the Iranians are being extremely careful not to give the U.S. any ammunition against them as they continue their nuclear-energy developments, the U.S. still wants to attack Iran and remain silent toward Saudi Arabia. However, once the U.S. has attacked Iran, who's next?
The U.S. is throwing out the steering wheel with its recent economic activities with its home-loan crisis. It will have no choice but to upset the entire economic world to plunder it after militarily destroying much of it if America is to survive as an Empire. They are also banking on the world not wanting to lose all their perceived equity in their U.S. Dollar holdings. Who would take their dollars? If the U.S. tanks, who would consume their products?
The Chinese have been shown what the U.S. can do to them if the U.S. stops buying from them. The U.S. recently started forcing the Chinese to recall many products. No one else can replace the U.S. market for Chinese goods.
Of course, there are many Globalists who couldn't care less about America just so long as those Globalists have theirs. They'll just hedge their bets on insider information and walk away that much richer in diversified investments, currencies, metals, etc.
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)