If the neocons had had their way, they would have attacked Iran long ago and based upon the previous NIE (2005) that they now say was in error. Who can trust these people? We don't. We don't trust them at all. They are paid to be pathological liars. They are Machiavellians — not to be trusted with power ever!

John Bolton is claiming now that the 2007 NIE on Iran may have been politicized by intelligence people who disagree with George W. Bush's policies. He says that the findings may be based upon disinformation given out by the Iranians to seem like real leaks.

However, the intelligence community is all part of the executive branch. The President can order those agencies around. Only impeachment and removal from office can stop him in that regard. The Bush administration drove intelligence with its policy in the lead-up to the attack on Baghdad. Everyone knows that. The leaked Downing Street Memos shows it clearly. Bolton is disingenuous.

The 2007 NIE on Iran was released by the administration, because it has been designed to twist the arguments. It has been designed to appear more reasonable. It is a ploy to put the Iranians more on the defensive. It is designed to change the subject. It is designed to take the spotlight off the neocons unsubstantiated allegations that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program. It is designed to get the anti-war movement that opposes Bush and the neocons to argue somewhat in favor of the NIE thereby supporting the position or lending credibility to the NIE stating that Iran did have a nuclear-weapons program and therefore had lied before and can't be trusted not to start up that program again. The neocons have miscalculated however.

The flip-flopping of the NIE's has just served to further discredit the administration.

This is all psy-ops being used against the American public and the world at-large. The neocons set up the view that the U.S. obtained secret notes that the U.S. has now divulged, which notes claim to show the Iranian military upset that Iran stopped a nuclear-weapons program. So, the neocons figured in advance for many months how to suddenly appear so credible by sharing (leaking disinformation) sources and methods. They've shared that they can obtain secret notes. Well, since they've shared this information, then share the notes. Make them public. Publish them so the world may analyze them.

Also, it is the U.K. that supposedly gave the U.S. much of the information. Remember the bad info (disinformation) that came from the Brits about Iraq being able to launch chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so. It was a lie. Why trust them 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)

  • 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.