I wrote a tweet yesterday
Obama is all ready to cut off the Iranians but does nothing about worse regimes including his own. He's a warmonger. Ahmadinejad is not.
One of my Facebook friends wrote:
My reply turned out to be something I decided to turn into a blog post:
I'm adamantly opposed to the death penalty and torture and have openly criticized the Iranian regime on both counts. Ahmadinejad is wrong to be in favor of the death penalty. Of course, I don't think he'd say he's in favor of torture. What's in his heart on that issue is something I'm not prepared to say. He isn't a warmonger though. I trust you take my point.
My point is one of comparison: Barack Obama versus Ahmadinejad.
Obama is still using "harsh" interrogation techniques that qualify as torture. He's certainly not calling for repealing the death penalty even though we know numerous innocent people have been executed and death row no doubt has inmates who would be vindicated via DNA, etc. Also, Obama has done next to nothing to roll back the police state of Bush-43.
He also tiptoes around the Zionists who have just openly stated that they will do whatever it takes to stop the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza, which means they'd be willing to sink the ships with all hands and passengers on board to drown them rather than let them deliver desperately needed humanitarian supplies.
Our President should be on board rather than hiding behind lies against Iran, concerning whom the Zionists have not shown one speck of evidence has a nuclear weapons program or intentions to create one.
I don't like Barack Obama for these and other reasons; yet, I certainly am open to and advocate his turning from his evil ways — Lord knows I require mercy and forgiveness too. He must repent of his evil though. We all must, and it's right.
Lastly and most importantly to my point is that Ahmadinejad is not bombing innocent people while Obama is.
My point is that Obama here is as the blacker pot calling the black kettle, blacker, when Obama has just been increasing the soot everywhere while mouthing platitudes as pablum for the naive and gullible masses.
So, I don't say that your point is irrelevant, far from it. Iran is still too harsh.
The CIA revving up ethnic and other strife in Iran to destabilize the country isn't helpful though. It drives the government there to harsher countermeasures when the US could use other approaches that would soothe the situation and soften the Mullahs' hearts, which is what's needed all the way around.
Let's not fall for the stupid Churchillian "appeasement" talk where it's not nearly applicable. The people of Iran had elected their leader who nationalized their oil industry and who was overthrown by the greedy Brits and Americans. Of course the Iranians are going to be wary. They also know who was supplying chemical weapons to Iraq and giving them targeting info to gas tens of thousands of Iranians when Iraq started the war in the first place.
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)