Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists that Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Iran has an "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq. General Petraeus said that Iran has been "responsible for killing hundreds of American soldiers." Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll said, "The Iranians continue to train Iraqis and finance their networks and over time that is going to build.... So over time if they continue to do this activity it will create bigger influence and that's going to lead to more interference in the internal affairs of Iraq." US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad called on "Iran and Syria [to] ... stop the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, and their malign interference in Iraq." He said the Quds Force continues "to arm, train and fund illegal armed groups in Iraq." He said, "This lethal aid poses a significant threat to Iraqi and multinational forces and to the stability and sovereignty of Iraq." US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "The leaders of Hamas are increasingly serving as the proxy warriors of an Iranian regime that is destabilizing the region, seeking a nuclear capability, and proclaiming a desire to destroy Israel." Rice referred to the Afghanistan Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, al Qaeda in Iraq and certain Iraqi Shiites, and Syria as parts of a "belt of extremism." She calls Iran the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Her department issued a report stating it. Plenty of others have been echoing all of this propaganda, such as Michael V. Hayden of the CIA.
They are all just given their talking point or points and then they're given way too much coverage just because they are part of the military-industrial complex. The corporate news is told what to do by way of interlocking directorates and falls obediently in line or heads roll.
It just flies in the face of the last NIE on Iran. They just waited long enough that they thought everyone would be suffering from information overload and amnesia about that report that said Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons. But since certain forces in Israel want a war with Iran while Bush is still in office, they, the neocons say, "Just lie." Bush of course has no problem with that. He just wants the tiniest "cover." It doesn't matter how lame it is, just so long as he can throw it out there.
They're going to roll out more unsubstantiated weapons. They're going to ignore and the mainstream US media will continue to ignore the illegality of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Iran says it doesn't want nuclear weapons. It spiritual leaders have declared such weapons anathema. Thorough inspections by the UN have come up clean, just as they did in Iraq even while the Machiavellians (all liars by ideology) claimed over and over without proof that Iraq had such weapons and programs underway. Iran is not a belligerent nation. The US is though. Ahmadinejad also never said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." He said, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time." He never threatened Israel with nuclear weapons.
Even if the Iranians are helping Iraqis against the US (something the US will not prove beyond a reasonable doubt), the US is there illegally and for Empire to steal resources and to do untold other evils.
The neocons aren't repenting. They have been called to repent, but they are ignoring the call. You can't do 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)