OBAMA CALLS THE IRANIAN PROTESTERS PEACEFUL?: LYING PRETEXT FOR WAR

OBAMA CALLS THE IRANIAN PROTESTERS PEACEFUL?: LYING PRETEXT FOR WAR

"We won't wait for Iran to build nuke," by Laurent Lozano. The Daily Telegraph. July 11, 2009.

While Obama is all about the business of saying that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran is building nuclear weapons even though he has provided zero proof of that, meaning he's engaged in the dark art of lying and psychological operations against all the people of the world, he's taken to referring to the protesters in Iran as peaceful.

God damns liars, meaning God doesn't stop Satan from having them to devour and punish.

Maybe it's because I don't watch TV that I'm not hypnotized into believing that total lie that the protesters were peaceful. No, I see the same garbage on the Internet and don't fall for it. The protesters were burning buses and destroying other property just as soon as they could get around to it. There was plenty of violence on their side. How many "security" forces have died? Isn't it about 8? Isn't that nearly half the number of protesters dead? How is that peacefully demonstrating? That's not peacefully demonstrating. That's worse than rioting. How many people marching with Martin Luther King, Jr., stopped to start buses on fire and then run away yelling death to President Johnson? The answer is, none!

Let's see, a fellow just got a 5-year prison sentence for hanging around Obama's house in Chicago while he had an unloaded gun in his car. I wonder how many years someone would get for getting up on his roof and yelling death to Obama? I don't think he'd get off with just a warning. What if a whole major city had numerous people doing exactly that after George W. Bush clearly stole the U.S. elections both times? The secret police would have descended and put a stop to it but pronto, arresting as many as necessary and breaking heads too if it came to any resistance at all. How many tased Americans would there have been? Plenty is the answer, as many as would have resisted.

Obama doesn't say anything about the lack of evidence for election fraud in Iran. Why? The answer is obvious. He wants to change the subject to Iranian brutality and to conflate that with a non-existent nuclear-weapons program so he can bomb, bomb, bomb Iran with the so-called Green Revolution dupes in America cheering him on. Watch him murder Iranians to "free" them if he isn't stopped by intelligent people who aren't hypnotized by the boob-making tube.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the Iranian theocracy is wrong. It has to go and will, but war and violence and coercion are not the way to do it right.

So, you go ahead, Obama. You continue hardening your heart until you're in the bowels of the Hell of your own making.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.