PENTAGON CLAIM THAT 1 OUT OF 7 RELEASED DETAINEES RETURNS TO BATTLE FIELD UNSUBSTANTIATED AND NO EXCUSE FOR HOLDING THE OTHER 6: CHENEY ANTICHRIST

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 09, 2009:
The following is quoted from Democracy Now:

NY Times Criticized over Report "1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad"

The New York Times is coming under intense scrutiny over its recent coverage of what former Guantanamo prisoners have done after their release. On May 21, the Times ran a front-page story titled "1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds." Since publication, the Times has had to backtrack from the article's most serious claims. On Sunday, the paper's public editor wrote that the article was "seriously flawed and greatly overplayed." The public editor said the article failed to distinguish between former prisoners suspected of new acts of terrorism—more than half the cases—and those supposedly confirmed to have rejoined jihad against the West. Had only confirmed cases been considered, one in seven would have changed to one in twenty.

Original post:

The Pentagon is claiming that 1 out of 7 released detainees is returning to the battle field or some such claim. Well, first of all, I don't buy the numbers. Just because they claim those numbers doesn't prove a thing. The Pentagon has a long history of lying. Regardless though, the use of the statistics, flawed or not, as reason to keep innocent people behind bars is barbaric. No civilized people can keep 6 out of 7 people behind bars indefinitely just because the 7th might take up arms against the regime that tortured him or held him without evidence or benefit of open, legitimate trial.

Cheney said that ruling out the use of torture, he euphemistically terms "enhanced interrogation techniques," is "recklessness cloaked in righteousness." This is coming from the one who literally called upon the nation to turn to the "dark side." What the Hell does he know about righteousness?

Dick Cheney is an advocate for the evils of the antichrist. Jesus was tortured to death afterall. Cheney claims Christ but won't follow the Golden Rule as Cheney, who himself is what he accuses others of being ("reckless" and "malevolent"), wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of 83 waterboardings, 82 (or was it 183 waterboardings, as Ray McGovern reports, "Cheney: Support for Israel Feeds Terrorism," by Ray McGovern. Information Clearing House. May 23, 2009?) of which would come after having spilled his guts or serving up any statement his waterboarding torturers demand as a pretext illegally to invade, occupy, and control other nations for oil reserves and the sake of unrighteous, greedy, and selfish empire. That's what his CIA did to someone. It did worse to others. The things they did were so depraved that they had to destroy the tapes

This person is refusing to repent. He is rejecting God and Christ.

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.