Barak restates Israeli hard line on nuclear Iran. Netanyahu lies through his teeth (again).

Defence Minister Ehud Barak restated Israel's fears of a nuclear-armed Iran on Thursday after his top general clashed with the government's line by describing the Islamic republic as "very rational" and unlikely to build a bomb.


Speaking on CNN on Tuesday, Netanyahu said he would not want to bet "the security of the world on Iran's rational behaviour". A "militant Islamic regime", he said, "can put their ideology before their survival".

The portrayal of Iran as irrational – willing to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon even if it means inviting catastrophic retaliation in kind – could bolster a case for pre-emptive bombing to take out its atomic facilities. [It could if people are stupid enough to buy into Netanyahu's blatantly false propaganda. He's a proven liar -- a major, unrepentant, categorical liar. There's video of him bragging about how he lied to the US. Sarkozy was right in telling Obama that he, Sarkozy doesn't trust Netanyahu. Only a fool would.]

via NewsWires : euronews : the latest international news as video on demand.


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.
    • Will Netanyahu vow to blow his own head off if he's proven wrong about Iran's so-called nuclear-weapons program?

    • You can't prove a negative condition. That's the evil beauty of the b.s. lambasting nuclear weapons opponents as 'the real danger' even after their participating for decades in a self-established certification program to show any reasonable person that their concerns to promote disarmament were not based in duplicity.

      • I hit the like on your comment, John, because of the sentiment. However, you and I both know that it has been proven that Iraq had no WMD and certainly no active nuclear-weapons program, all contrary to the assurances of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, who later said he never said they did. The videos of him saying they did and that were put in his face showed otherwise.

        Now, if only someone could have gotten Donald to say that if no WMD turn up that he'll blow his own head off.... Well, of course that's not what I want, but he was a complete, lying ass, as is Netanyahu.

    • Well, they don't say that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program anymore but that Iran only hasn't proven it doesn't, meaning Iran hasn't opened up enough and made itself dependent upon the US Empire. The US now says "suspected." They never said that before I kept calling them liars and demanded proof, etc. Now they think that they backed off enough to win. They haven't.

      Netanyahu is a stinking liar out to attack Iran in a rivalry for Empire in the region. Everyone knows it. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are being forced to confront it. Netanyahu thumbs his nose at the US. He authorizes illegal "settlements" at his whim and then holds out his hand for US taxpayer dollars and American bunker busters. He should be told to repent or go back to Hell where he comes from.

      It's just an endless stream of lies about Iran and sensationalizing Iranian bluster, I'm not saying I'm a fan of the Iranian sharia clerics running the show there. They have a convert to Christianity, a pastor, on death row because he converted after the allowable age (they say) and refuses to recant. If they kill him, murder him, all bets are off. It's that serious.

      Of course, none of that says anything about Obama's crazy and wicked drone use, etc. Obama's just shrewder than Netanyahu is all.