PROOF OF GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE AUTHORIZING ILLEGAL INTERROGATION METHODS: TORTURE

So, the White House, and not just Justice Department lawyers, signed off on illegal interrogation methods. We all knew that the White House had held meetings where top cabinet members agreed that they were authorizing certain torture methods. We've all heard then Attorney General Ashcroft's statement that "history will not judge this [torture decision] kindly." Now, the Washington Post has officially published that there exists at least two likewise official White House memos to the CIA authorizing waterboarding (an illegal practice under U.S. and international law).
(Source: White House memos endorsed CIA waterboarding: report
Wed Oct 15, 3:44 AM ET
Reuters)

Now, you have Joe Biden going about saying that one ought never to question anyone's motives. That's nonsense. Just because someone has risen up in the U.S. system does not place that one on some sort of untouchable pedestal. Of course, one is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Even then, the RLCC doesn't advocate punishment but rather rehabilitation. There are those things though that cry out about the original motives of perpetrators.

The Iraq invasion and occupation were and are the unquestionably result of covetousness. Dick Cheney called Middle Eastern oil "the prize." The motive was to grab control of the oil and to deny others. It was selfishness. The motive was, and remains, selfishness. That's the truth. Joe Biden is wrong to cover over or to miss the motive for what it is: Evil.

What were the motives of those who allowed and facilitated 9/11? Empire is the answer. What were the motives of those who lied and lied and lied to get the U.S. public to allow the invasion of Iraq? Dick Cheney specifically said that the U.S. must turn to the dark side. In that case, you don't need to question his motives. You know his motives. He's said them outright: To bring forth the "dark side." Covetousness comes out from the dark.

What bad leadership to call upon the people to turn selfishly to grabbing resources and turning to the devil. What kinds of people keep an admitted, proselytizing demon in office? Look in the mirror if you follow Dick Cheney. You'll see a demon looking back at you.

What are the motives of those who counsel and accede to torture? They don't torture in Heaven. The torturers aren't angels of light. They can pretend to be, but their actions and results give them away for the fallen angels of darkness they have become.

Such things as false-flag operations, invasions, occupations, and torture have not made the world safer or more secure. They have made the world a harder, uglier, more dreadful place — more Hellish. Only overcoming such things will make the world safe and secure.

Hitler said that the German men must have cold eyes. Think about that.

Donate


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.