Feith didn't disagree with the CIA. He made stuff up. He took known garbage and sold it as intelligence. That was his job, and he did it well.
His office was a policy-driven course of derailing all real intelligence. His job was to railroad America into a war based upon all the false pretences he and his group could conjure up. The Pentagon's inspector general may think that's not illegal, but the inspector general is wrong.
The case for war is the most important legal argument, legal case, there is. The legal obligation for taking a nation to war based upon open facts is the highest requirement under the mundane law. To knowingly and willfully lead a nation into war based upon fabricated evidence is the highest crime there is under mundane law.
It's a major crime under the divine law as well, so there's no getting off the hook without repenting, something Douglas Feith is avoiding as if the hope for redemption is the plague rather than his string of lies that continue to this day.
We're guilty of sinning in our lives. The point is to standup finally to say enough, enough sinning from all quarters. Not to do so just perpetuates it. It makes it harder for everyone, the self included.
Feith is just scrambling to avoid being charged with war crimes, something under the mundane law that ought to happen until he repents. There's no presumption of innocents here. He's guilty as charged. If you stood right there watching someone shoot someone in the head, you know he did it. Others may have put him up to it, he may be under a spell, but he still did it.
The question is whether Feith will see the light and stop lying for the sake of his spot in the Empire and for the sake of Israeli imperial ambitions.
Oh, of course he should be allowed to give his evidence to support his contention that he's not lying now. Of course everyone is afforded more rope to hang himself and herself with in the eyes of God. Rather though, he should take the warning and turn before he is so far gone that he cannot find the way not to lose his soul. Right now, he's spiritually dead. He's walking in utter darkness, and misleading and aiding and abetting many others who might otherwise see the light. It's the blind-to-the-truth leading the blind-to-the-truth.
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)