Barack Obama said the following:
It's time to present Iran with a clear choice: if it abandons its nuclear programs, support for terror and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations; if not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions....
What nuclear programs does he mean? Does he mean nuclear power plants? Does he mean nuclear weapons programs that every nation on Earth has a mundanely legal right to pursue? Iran has the internationally legal right to opt out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to make nuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan have them. Many other nations have them, including of course Israel and the U.S. Why is Iran not allowed to have them even though Israel and the U.S. are? It's a double standard based upon arbitrary, insupportable rules made up by the U.S. and Israel.
Show me the law that says Iran can't have nuclear weapons. I'd like to read it. I'd like to see if it's consistent with the highest law of the U.N. (constitutional on a U.N. level, so to speak).
As for support for terror, what does he mean? The U.S. has used unlawful violence and destruction and threats of violence and destruction to make others afraid not to go along with neocon ideology. That's terrorism.
Remember though that Obama said he was offended that his former pastor Jeremiah Wright called that spade a spade. Obama couldn't even speak intelligently on the subject. He couldn't even say and back it up that George W. Bush used illegal tactics in the U.N. in the lead-up to the illegal invasion and illegal occupation of Baghdad.
Bush used spying on U.N. delegates. He used coercion. He used bribes. He used falsified intelligence. He used forged documents that he knew were fake at the time. He forced an end to the weapons inspections that were being conducted openly, honestly, and thoroughly. He used the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans to make a mockery of intelligence. It was obvious to all that he was forcing his policy to drive the intelligence, as the British put it.
Where is Obama on all of that? Where is he on the cover-up of 9/11? Where is he on the missing trillions from the Pentagon?
What "threats to Israel"? The only thing I've heard coming out of Iran toward Israel is the threat to retaliate if Israel attacks Iran, which Israel has been openly discussing doing under the completely illegitimate theory of preventative attack.
Is Obama really going to tell us that he buys all the false-Zionist translations of what the Iranians say?
Obama couldn't even stick up for Jimmy Carter doing the right thing.
Why is everybody so worked up about supporting Obama? He's about one inch to the left of the center-right DLC.
Obama is running for front man for the Empire of the global plutocrats. Why are people for that? The plutocrats aren't good. They're bad for the people.
When will the people wake up and see the light? The current worldly system is fallen and is still falling. If the people don't turn, it will continue falling to its utter ruination.
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)