U.K. INVESTIGATION INTO LEAD-UP TO IRAQ WAR: HOW SECRET?

U.K. INVESTIGATION INTO LEAD-UP TO IRAQ WAR: HOW SECRET?

The U.K. is going to conduct investigations into the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. One Sir John Chilcot will head up the inquiry. The British people have demanded it because they know that the facts were fixed around the policy and that Bush and Blair had agreed to go to war even though the U.N. weapons inspections were not being unreasonably impeded and were turning up nothing. Blair knew it was clearly against international law. He was worried, but he brownnosed Bush. Bush could have cared less about legalities. When he was declared the winner in 2000, he was quoted as saying that "now I'm not accountable to anyone." He figured he was emperor for a term (two terms since he knew he'd cheat his way to victory again) and would make himself more powerful than Richard Nixon so much so that no one would ever touch him. So far, he's been right about that. Forever is just that though. If he goes to the grave with his unrepentant attitude, he'll find out that he's accountable.

There has been a debate in the U.K. over whether the investigation will be entirely secret. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is on the defensive. He's having to give some ground, but will it be merely symbolic? He's still appealing to state secrets and national security — the old fallback position for all fascists. The Report to be issued will now be allowed to fix blame. Its witnesses may also be placed under oath. Initially, the Gordon government had said not.

(See: "Iraq inquiry will attribute blame, says Miliband: Foreign secretary also concedes it would be possible for witnesses to give evidence on oath," by Andrew Sparrow. guardian.co.uk. June 24, 2009.)

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.
    • 'After Downing Street' has been the 'go to' for information on the British path down the road to complicity - again - in torture and invasion. Jack Straw is no favourite of many.
      Figuring out the arc of US action is much easier these days - http://www.leadingtowar.com/?gclid=CJal0bj67JkCFR...

      • It sure is easier! They (the CIA and DIA, which are just two heads of the same beast), of course, know it and work it. Is your sense that Jack Straw would have been more demanding of Bush had Straw been the Prime Minister? His moral I.Q. is higher than Blair's, but Bush's impatience is the stuff of legends: "My way or the highway."

        Can anyone fall to the level of Prime Minister or President and not utterly compromise whatever moral understanding he or she once had? What true understanding did he ever really have if it was so fleeting? It is just seed cast by the side of the road for the birds: no roots and certainly never produces truly good fruit.

        Right now, the rest of the world is talking more than ever about marginalizing the U.S. for a change. Every Bush gets his comeuppance. Nevertheless, judge not, lest ye be judged. Therefore, forgive them their trespasses, as we ask to be forgiven for our own.

        It is on account of this that I contemplate where I'm to draw the line when I'm censored or banned, etc., and what and where to say anything about it. I know I'm misunderstood. I know people aren't willing to stand out there saying "serpents." I know there are people who aren't as unrighteous as the serpents who say to me not to say it. If Jesus hadn't said "serpents," where would my soul be heading that is vastly worse than now? Silence is evil when it's to save one's skin where speaking out could save not only the skin of others but also their souls. Jesus spoke directly to me saying, "Tom, don't be a serpent." That's my brother loving me so much that he gave his own flesh and blood to tell me. What am I supposed to do now, tell him to go to Hell? What would that make me?

        My motive is to encourage people to dialogue to the nth degree, meaning until what is truly, ultimately, objectively right is revealed.

        The single worst thing in this world is people imagining that avoiding the so-called tough questions is the path to take. Much of what I write on this site falls on ears that hear and pretend not.

        That's my judgment, but I'm not the one who decides what to do with them. Jesus called them "serpents," but it's left to the individual heart to choose whether Jesus is the one who will finally say "cut them to pieces before me" or not. I say not. I say he is separated and protected from the evil ones though by the one who lets another cut them to pieces before him. It is God's choice to allow souls to suffer at their own hands or what can be called their own hypocritical standards.

        The worst thing about the neocons is that they tempt God to let Satan have them to do to them what they are doing to others. Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God.

        It is for that, that I am most sorry concerning my own life. I fell to doing that. I repent of it. I stand judged before my own conscience informed by God. Why won't the whole of humanity do the same? Who has not deserved to sit in sackcloth and ashes simply for being tempted?

        Jesus was made strait by God though and said we can be too. So, why not? It wouldn't end singing or dancing or joy, etc.: just the opposite. It would end war and greed and pain and suffering caused by all manner of selfishness.

        Peace to you, John.