"Why Israel is even less likely to strike Iran now - CSMonitor.com"
At every turn, the US has hemmed Israel in (probably the reason so many "anonymous" officials fed the Azerbaijan story to FP). They have made it clear that they will truly be on their own if they attack unilaterally (read: You won't force us into a war of your own choosing).
Look, Barack Obama knows that the Left would savage him were he to fall into the trap of attacking Iran just because the Zionists are conveniently paranoid empire builders. Obama and his administration has finally figured it out that people, such as yours truly, will never stop demanding proof (hard, independently verified evidence) that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Even then, we would continue asking why Israel may have nukes and the US may have nukes but Iran, which could legally leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty whenever it wants, may not have nuclear weapons.
I happen to believe the Supreme Leader of Iran when he says that it is against his religion to acquire and/or use nuclear weapons. I don't agree with all of his views, but I cannot see any way that he would lie about such a thing. To have issued a formal religious statement that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and then turn around and build them and be found out would completely ruin his credibility and likely be considered a mortal sin to Muslims in general, whether Sunni, Shia, or otherwise.
Obama knows all of this because people have hammered and hammered and hammered on it on the Internet and elsewhere and rightly so.
Obama also knows that the credibility of the Zionists has gone down, down, down just since Obama has been in office. It certainly started before that though.
When the Zionists attacked Gaza after a huge lull in any rockets from Gaza, when they were caught boldfaced lying about having rained down white phosphorus, and that after having showered Lebanon with cluster bomblets right before leaving Lebanon, when they were caught using passports from all over during their assassinations on foreign soil, after all that and more, much, much more, people around the world simply became too fed up to continue letting the Zionists get away with spinning and spinning in the US mainstream media. They finally stood up. Nothing has been the same since, and it's not going to let down but increase until the Zionists are reined in, come Hell or high water.
And there will not be another USS Liberty.
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)