It's an old joke. "When did you stop beating your wife?" So, when did Iran stop arming the Sunni militia blowing up Iran's fellow Shiites in Iraq? That's how stupid the Bush administration and the U.S. military think everyone is who reads that Iran isn't arming their enemies against their friends anymore.
This is so dumb that it's flaunting raw power. They think they don't have to try very hard to cover what they're doing, since they have all the so-called intelligent people afraid to speak out. After all, everyone in the Bush administration and the military knows that only an idiot is going to tell it like it is, because only an idiot isn't going to be self-centered enough to keep his or her mouth shut so he or she won't be cut off from the hand that feeds (the powers that be and not God). Wrong!
We have one, Col. Boylan, a spokesperson for General David Petraeus in Iraq, saying at the beginning of this year that the Iranians are no longer supplying the Iraqis with weapons or material.
"We are ready to confirm the excellence of the senior Iranian leadership in their pledge to stop the funding, training, equipment and resourcing of the militia special groups. We have seen a downward trend in the signature-type attacks using weapons provided by Iran."
This is just an aspect of the same strategy used with the NIE on Iran. Has Iran admitted to having ever supplied "militia special groups" in Iraq? Remember, the U.S. military was saying before that Iran was supplying Sunnis fighting against Shiites. Iran is a Shiite nation. Would they arm Sunnis killing Shiites just because the U.S. would kill its "friends"?
Frankly, we all know that the U.S. conducts false-flag operations. We all know that the U.S. has armed many groups in Iraq via "missing" weapons. We know it has funded many groups via billions in untraceable cash. We know that the U.S. is training and providing intelligence to opposing forces all to increase chaos to divide and conquer.
Bush has to back away from bombing Iran. He has to do it on false evidence against Iran dished out by the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence. He has to do that for the sake of Republican Party survival, for unless he were prepared to go all the way to declaring himself dictator, which is not going to be approved by the global plutocrats (he's not clever enough), attacking Iran with no evidence would destroy his party. He's been given his orders by the real deciders — Do as we say, or we'll cut off the money and maybe more than that.
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)