Tom Usher commented or added the following:
"Ultimately, the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program thrusts Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one step closer to achieving his goal of setting off nuclear Armageddon!
"Under the circumstances, it's worth considering the primary motivation behind Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's quest for nukes."
Oh, please, do we have to be subjected to such utter nonsense? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not want nuclear Armageddon! There is zero evidence that he wants a nuclear war or any kind of war. In fact, there's every reason to believe that he hates war. He's not the ultimate authority in Iran anyway, and the Supreme Leader has said that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and that Iran does not want them and is not pursuing their development. I believe him on that.
Articles such as this one are simply fear-mongering to get the American people to agree that Israel (the wicked, wicked Zionists) and the US should start yet another war – this one against Iran. It's a very evil article.
Instead of quoting the Iranians, this Brad Macdonald quotes Joel Rosenburg, "former aide to Benjamin Netanyahu," as to what the Iranians want. After quoting a rabid Zionist (they are all pathetic liars), Macdonald says " Notice that: The state-sponsored goal of the Iranian republic is to bring about global carnage," as if what Rosenburg says is the Gospel truth. Rosenburg is a liar!
Macdonald says that Ahmadinejad "considers the acquisition of nuclear weapons a religious mandate—one he must not compromise!" Well, actually, Ahmadinejad believes that lying about nukes is a grave sin that would see him in Hell.
I don't believe in Ahmadinejad's religion, but Ahmadinejad does. He's extremely devout. He's not one who believes in the strain of Islam that claims that it's okay to lie to the non-Islamic world about Iran's true intentions.
Brad writes, "Where will Iran's ambition for global nuclear war end? As the Trumpet has often explained, the answer can be found in a biblical prophecy in Daniel 11:40-44. Here, we learn that instead of conquering Israel and America, and ushering in the return of the Mahdi, Iran—or, as it's termed in Daniel, the king of the south—will be preemptively attacked by another 'king' in a spectacular clash. This 'king of the north,' as Daniel terms it, is the now-forming German-led European power."
That's total dung. If anyone attacks Iran while Iran is simply pursuing nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons and attacks Iran under a false-claim that Iran was working to acquire nuclear weapons to use them in a first strike on the Zionists, that attacker, those attackers, will be on the receiving end of the wrath to come. I guarantee it. That's prophesying against them, the liars!
God loves truth, not political spinners. Satan gets the liars!
Laura Abraham likes this. Good!
"Ž..I like your comments Tom, as usual! :)
This is great, Tom. Thanks.
Tom, please check my wall for another discussion we were having.
Thanks Laura and Betty. Will do, Betty. I'm getting there (working on catching 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)