Tom Usher wrote or added | This US Representative Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA) is telling many lies here not the least of which is that the Gaza Freedom Flotilla ships were opposed to inspections for weapons. The Free Gaza Movement has been very clear on this subject and the people on the Flotilla were clear that they would gladly submit to UN "customs" or "weapons" inspections but that the Zionists have no right to withhold regular go goods (including cement to rebuild their infrastructure destroyed by the illegal attack, a war crime, called Operation Cast Lead) and services and freedom of movement in and out of Gaza and Palestine.
This fork-tongued Rohrabacker completely ignores that "Israel" was founded on lies, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, land theft, and more and that those same tactics are continuing, as Israel continues its illegal, immoral, aggressive, belligerent, expansionist agenda in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Dana Rohrabacker is telling huge falsehoods in his speech. He knows full well that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire with Hamas. Only people living under rocks on this subject matter are unaware that Hamas had stopped firing all rockets and had even gone after rogue elements in Gaza that were refusing to obey Hamas's deal with Israel for the ceasefire. While that ceasefire was being strictly observed by Hamas, Israel failed to keep it's end of the bargain. Israel failed to honor its commitment (nothing new there) to lift checkpoint constrictions on supplies that the Zionists had reduced to as little as 15% of the regular and necessary minimum flow. Israel was also still invading to kidnap people and to destroy houses, businesses, orphanages, schools, crops and to do other provocative evils.
He goes on to accuse those who killed no one, but who could have very easily, of holding themselves out as total pacifists. The Israelis and Rohrabacker knew that there were Muslims on the ships. Muslims are not total pacifists. Total passivity is against their religion. Rohrabacker keeps using the term "peace activists" as synonymous with total pacifists. They are not synonyms. A person can be an activist for peace and/or be a professing humanitarian while not being a total pacifist. Many on the flotilla, as the Israelis knew because the Israelis had been closely monitoring all the news about them and had even sabotaged at least two boats that I know of, said that they would physically defend their cargo from being illegally seized by Israel.
He calls Israeli commandos who killed at least nine people and wounded some 30 more, many of whom were completely unarmed, "the heroes of the day." What a twister this Rohrabacker is. He has a cold, hard, small heart to be saying such a thing. Israeli commandos were disarmed and then released by the passengers who could have easily killed them had they been so inclined. He has the gall to tell the world to "seek truth on this issue." How will he escape damnation? He is preaching from his love of Zionist money.
This situation is totally unacceptable and must and will stop. Dana Rohrabacker is being no better here than the serpent of scripture. Repent, Rohrabacker. Take back your lies.
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)