To date (Sunday, January 06, 2008):

So, she was the daughter of a former Prime Minister of Pakistan who made reportedly many promises he broke. He was accused of corruption, removed in a coup, and executed.

Benazir went to both Harvard and Oxford universities.

In 1988, she became Prime Minister and made deals with the military and supported the Taliban to some degree (it was the inevitable result of U.S. policy that used the Taliban to fight the Soviets — to give them their own Vietnam).

She was Prime Minister when Pakistan was pursuing nuclear weapons.

She was suspected in her own brother's assassination.

Benazir and her husband were accused of corruption and left the country in 1998.

She was accused, along with her husband, of personal enrichment by upwards of 1.5 billion U.S. dollars via kickbacks and other means.

She was tried in Switzerland and found guilty there of several charges which she continued to deny to her death.

In the months leading to Bhutto's return to Pakistan, President Musharraf faced growing pressure by the U.S. to hound the fundamentalist Muslims, who are militantly pro-sharia. Musharraf engaged in more fighting that resulted in a flare up and much civil unrest and many deaths including of women and children (a hallmark of so-called modern warfare — in WWI only 5% of the casualties were civilians, now it's some 75% — so much for pinpoint accuracy of smart, humane weapons).

Bhutto cut a deal with the U.S. President, George W. Bush, to go back to Pakistan where President Musharraf was supposedly to share power with her. She was granted amnesty and all of the old corruption charges against her were dropped.

Apparently, she agreed to Bush's terms, whatever those were. They would have included blaming terrorists and extremists and agreeing to fight them in whatever way the U.S. Empire would want at the time. Of course, fighting whomever the U.S. were to designate would really be about diversions for the sake of getting at more oil and creating more pipelines and transit ports, etc. It would also be about fracturing nations to keep them weak relative to the U.S. and Israel to a lesser degree. (The worldly imperial Anglo-Saxons in England and the United States have no intention of ceding ultimate power to the Jews as a secular or religious nation-state, ever.)

On October 18, 2007, she returned and underwent an attempted assassination in which some 103+ are killed in the bombing.

She was about to turn over to U.S. legislators {Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)} proof, it is said, of planned vote rigging by the Pakistani government concerning upcoming elections.

On December 27, 2007, she was assassinated along with some twenty other people who died and with the police charged with guarding her backing away before the attack.

Her body didn't undergo an autopsy.

The Pakistani government said she was not shot even though doctors said she had holes in her body.

The scene of her death was reportedly high-pressure washed within hours after the shootings and bombing.

The Pakistani and U.S. government blame "terrorists" and "extremists" (al Qaeda and the Taliban). Well, they have that part of it right only the terrorists and extremists are in the Pakistani and U.S. government who still have connections with both al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Now, all that's needed are witnesses coming forward only to start mysteriously dying and we'll be looking at a classic JFK-style assassination. Where's the "magic bullet"?

It is ironic that Bhutto was going to give her "proof" of vote rigging to Senator Arlen Specter, who came up with the ridiculous magic-bullet theory in the JFK-assassination investigation which theory actually stuck. It is incredibly lame as an excuse or cover-up device. They were advertising that they committed a coup. Also, it was Arlen Specter who helped Senators Schumer and Feinstein squeak Attorney General Mukasey through his nomination hearing in the Senate, who refused to say torture in the form of waterboarding is torture. (Inflicting severe physical or mental pain as a means of punishment or coercion is torture.)

Throughout all of this, it must never be forgotten that one Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was ordered by Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, chief of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) [Pakistan's CIA] to wire $100,000 USD into Mohammed Atta's bank account. Atta was allegedly one of the nineteen suicide attackers on 9/11.

October 7, 2001: ISI Director Replaced at US Urging; Role in Funding 9/11 Plot Is One Explanation

ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is replaced in the face of US pressure after links are discovered between him, Saeed Sheikh, and the funding of the 9/11 attacks. Mahmood instructed Saeed to transfer $100,000 into hijacker Mohamed Atta's bank account prior to 9/11. This is according to Indian intelligence, which claims the FBI has privately confirmed the story. [Press Trust of India, 10/8/2001; Times of India, 10/9/2001; India Today, 10/15/2001; Daily Excelsior (Jammu), 10/18/2001] The story is not widely reported in Western countries, though it makes the Wall Street Journal. [Australian, 10/10/2001; Agence France-Presse, 10/10/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/10/2001] It is reported in Pakistan as well. [Dawn (Karachi), 10/8/2001] The Northern Alliance also repeats the claim in late October. [Federal News Service, 10/31/2001] In Western countries, the usual explanation is that Mahmood is fired for being too close to the Taliban. [London Times, 10/9/2001; Guardian, 10/9/2001] The Times of India reports that Indian intelligence helped the FBI discover the link, and says, "A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions.


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.