Friday, January 05, 2007

As you are probably aware, in reaction to 9-11, the Congress allowed their so-called civil-liberties guard down and allowed the undoing of legislation designed to protect against police-state abuses. The office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was created to consolidate what is called the national intelligence community—some sixteen agencies. The infamous John Negroponte was named by George W. Bush as it's first head.

Negroponte to State

Negroponte is now moving to the Department of State, a move that is confirming about where the Bush administration has been heading the Empire. They have moved to make the CIA even bigger liars than they were, and they are going to put the wrench to State now more than ever. The fox is about to have free reign in the chicken coop.

This is not to say that State hadn't already been facing any such pressures from the outside and within. It is just that now, the pressure will be coming from those who are really much less concerned, if at all, about any balancing with morality. This has always been there. Now it is just more widespread and attempting to create a solid foothold. It will slip though. It always does.

They plan to replace Negroponte with Mike McConnell, who the news reports tell us is the current senior vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

McConnell headed the NSA (1992-1996) before that. He was a Navy vice admiral who was an intelligence officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1990-92).

The current CIA director was an NSA director and is a general. When he moves out of the CIA, if he isn't moved to another position in government, he'll go through a revolving door to a corporation making untold (classified) millions in contracts with the government (intelligence and military) and with other businesses in the military-industrial complex.

Of course the current secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, was George H. W. Bush's recommendation to his son. Gates came through the revolving door too, but from GHWB's school more so than from the hyper false-Zionist school. Nevertheless, he's on the same larger team. He was a yes man, a company man, for the Iran-Contra scheme for instance.

McConnell comes to the DNI through that revolving door. For the last ten years, he's been making his personal millions in large measure off intelligence contracts with the US government. One contract is for consolidating the data mining, the filtering, etc., of all records and communications, and we mean all.[335]

Now all this whole push has done is to drive up intelligence budgets, robbing the taxpayers, the workers. It's a scam. They have created the so-called "mission": The war on terrorism. They helped create the terrorists and are still doing it. It's the largest protection racket in the world. It's globalization of the protection racket.

Backdoor, reverse redistribution-of-wealth

It's a backdoor, reverse redistribution-of-wealth program with the money flowing from the general tax base to the rich.

This is the movement started by Margaret Hilda Thatcher and Ronald Reagan: Privatization. We are seeing the corporate tax rates being slashed around the world[336] so that corporations can grab more and more of the wealth of the planet in a competitive feeding frenzy. The general weal is not paramount. The private, special advantage and privilege of the few is the goal. The rest may have the trickledown, scraps, and the bulk of the pollution, destruction, pain, and suffering.

We aren't for taxes though. We're for freely, fairly, giving and sharing all. We're for those who don't want to make hell. We're for those who want to and who will work to bring it forth without coercion making the real heaven show up on the earth.

Globalizing privatization

The movement to globalize privatization is being forwarded at a furious pace. President Angela Merkel of Germany is openly promoting TAFTA, a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.[337] This plan is to continue what has been called for decades, the harmonization of US and European laws for commerce. Of course, the oligarchs will be for it to the extent they can control it, coming out on top (or on the bottom if your perspective is that such greed is evil).

Many people are defending this push as a double-edged sword, which it is in a sense. They say that giving up a certain style of sovereignty (US) will bring greater freedoms of a sort (economic benefits and a reduced likelihood of wars within such a trade area, etc.).

The truth is that the movements of the oligarchs to consolidate their power contains the seeds for dethroning them. They will gather the people under them, and then the people, the grassroots, will alter everything once they have had their fill of all the evil.


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 Sup7 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.