Not good enough:
Days before an Israeli election that he is expected to win, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday directed a veiled barb at President Obama, who was quoted this week as denouncing Mr. Netanyahu's policies.
"Obama said privately and repeatedly, 'Israel doesn't know what its own best interests are.' With each new settlement announcement, in Obama's view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation."
Mr. Obama said then, regarding Iran, "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," and, "In terms of Israeli politics, there's been a view that regardless of whether it's a Democratic or Republican administration, the working assumption is: we've got Israel's back."
Soon after the General Assembly voted to upgrade the status of the Palestinians, the Netanyahu government announced that it would advance plans to settle a particularly contentious area of the West Bank known as E1. Mr. Obama "didn't even bother getting angry," Mr. Goldberg wrote. "He told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu's part is what he has come to expect, and he suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart."
It is not enough that Barack Obama makes clear that he disagrees with Benjamin Netanyahu's continued illegal construction plans in the West Bank. He has to lay down ultimatums. The Zionists are stealing and stealing and stealing other people's land. The United States has been the main other party in the world that has made that possible.
It is past time the United States told the Zionists that either the Zionist stop all so-called settlement activity immediately or the United States will cut off all funds, weapons, ammunition, etc. The United States should do no less concerning the Zionists than the United States did concerning Apartheid South Africa and the white nationalist, supremacist, racist Afrikaners there.
I'm not for doing to the Zionists what the Zionists have done to others, but I am for stopping them by not facilitating them any longer.
As for Iran, the United States has zero proof that the Iranians have a nuclear-weapons program. The Zionists have been lying and lying and lying that they, the Zionists, know the Iranians have such a weapons program. The United States has zero right to have placed harsh sanctions on Iran. Doing so was a declaration of war against the Iranian people, who under international law (which law everyone is so quick to ignore), would be within their rights to engage in militant self-defense to stop the aggressors: The United States and all the others who've aided in applying the unjustified sanctions.
Stand up against the Zionists, Barack Obama. The days of the Zionists running the United States are over! Tell them. Do it now.
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)