UPDATE: According to Reuters, January 3, 2009: "At least 424 Palestinians have been killed and 2,000 wounded in the air strikes while four Israelis have been killed by Palestinian-fired rockets." Where is the outcry in the U.S. against this? Woe, woe, woe!
We had a siege for one-and-a-half months, nothing allowed in, no medicines, no food, no nothing. And still, Hamas and other organizations did not throw any rockets. Israel kept on coming, and they killed twenty-three people in three weeks. Of course, this provoked Hamas, and they just did not renew this issue of ceasefire, because it was useless. — Dr. Moussa El-Haddad, December 29, 2008
This notion that Israel has a right to defend itself—against who? Against 1.5 million people who are refugees, who are starving, who are caged in the world's largest prison or concentration camp. Don't Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves? What should Palestinians do? I turn the question of those who keep pointing the finger at the Palestinians. — Ali Abunimah, December 29, 2008, democracynow.org
The world will need to remember that although Israel is a Jewish state, it is a state whose policies many Jews find objectionable, just as a majority of American Jews oppose President Bush's wars of aggression in the Middle East and his unconstitutional policies at home. We must not confuse Israel's Zionist government with world Jewry, just as we must not confuse the American people with the war criminals in the Bush Regime. — Paul Craig Roberts, January 2, 2009
Okay, let's see. 400-600 people have been killed in Gaza, because the Israelis started knocking down businesses and houses and shutting schools and orphanages and generally tightening up during a period of relative calm. Did you know that's how it started, or do you get your news from the Associated Press? The Gazans began retaliating, so Israel literally shut down everything more so than ever before. The Gazans became desperate and some retaliated with rockets. The Israelis stepped it up some more while doing a little distracting such as pushing some Jewish so-called settlers around. With each escalation by Israel, the Gazans fired more rockets. Now we have a line of tanks ready to go into Gaza and Israeli soldiers and civilians literally dancing there in anticipation of the wholesale slaughter.
Now, I'm reminded of my own words when I said that the only reason, the only reason, Ariel Sharon withdrew from Gaza was so there would be no Israelis there when Israel attacks en masse. That old fox though got his massive brain hemorrhage for his lovely thoughts, not that I wished it on him. Who though couldn't see it coming what with his weight and all the evil he was doing on behalf of the Jews and his own immediate family, especially his sons who aided him in the gangsterism?
For nearly a week now, Israel has been pounding a people whose land the Israelis stole. I see nothing from Barack Obama telling them that they better stop and back off and repent and atone. Well, he won't say it, but I will and am.
Israel, you better stop, back off, repent, and atone. If you don't, then woe to you. That's no idle threat. That's a warning out from love about the inevitable negative consequences once Satan gets you, and he will if you keep it up.
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)