The following is my commentary concerning, "UN Official Demands Torture Accountability," (by Edger. Antemedius.com. July 2, 2009) and specifically Edger's comment at the end of that post as follows, "Where is the line between avoiding the issue, and becoming complicit and an accessory?"

Edger posted the following video:

Hi Edger,

Yours is an excellently posed question: "Where is the line between avoiding the issue, and becoming complicit and an accessory?" There is definitely an element of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" in Obama's tightrope walking. His handlers and he are trying to get away with not calling a spade a spade — not calling waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation techniques" what they are: torture. Due to Obama's approach to life (his severely deficient worldview), he cannot roundly expose and denounce all the lies going back to the beginning of time while at the same time calling for peace and reconciliation without being directly confronted with having to include his stated arch enemies, the Pashtuns, he has conflated with the Taliban, conflated with al Qaeda, ignored as a CIA creation.

To advance the construction of purely worldly Empire, hypocritically, Obama murders Pashtuns while feigning he wants only to look forward or "just move on," as the neocons are so fond of saying concerning all neocon evils (your point, Edger: "avoiding the issues").

So, Obama has his war in Pakistan that he's managed to get the Pakistani military to wage as an illegal imperial proxy. It is estimated that he's now directly responsible for the murder of 600-800 civilians, including many women, children, and babies via his use of predator drones (that some are moving to declare illegal, but why stop there?). He has created some 2-3 million internal war refugees. We don't know how many have been killed by the Pakistani military, but those deaths as well are on Obama's and Obama's accomplice's hands.

What were the capital crimes of the Pakistani Pashtuns, that they wanted their local brand of sharia? When was the evidence presented to the world and a ruling made under international law, which is the law of the land in the United States by virtue of explicit language in the U.S. Constitution? Such evidence was never provided and no such ruling occurred.

The border with Afghanistan is porous. The Pashtuns live on either side. They are close relatives. Under the illegal President, George W. Bush (illegal via an illegal ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court), the U.S., gave only trumped-up reasons for making war on the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban had asked for evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. No such evidence was supplied to the Taliban or to the world because no such evidence was available. All the neocons and Bush simply ignored that and went to war, which is a war crime for which he should have been impeached, tried, and removed from office posthaste.

Obama should likewise have already been impeached, tried, and removed from office. Obama's Vice President, Joe Biden would then be held to the same standard, which isn't very high at all.

When George W. Bush had Osama bin Laden in his sights, he gave the order not to shoot. He rather allowed the CIA operative to cross Afghanistan in a caravan of vehicles on the road that the U.S. didn't attack or block even though the U.S. "owned" the roads at that point. Then Bush had Afghani proxies surround Tora Bora on only three sides, leaving the Pakistan border wide open for Osama and Osama's people to exit the mountain stronghold (via clearly known passes easily targeted by U.S. airpower) into Pakistan. In addition, the U.S. military actually conducted an air evacuation of thousands from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Middle-and lower-level U.S. personnel were not allowed to hinder the mass exodus, even though the group couldn't help but contain al Qaeda. Even general officers were stunned by the Pentagon's (Donald Rumsfeld's and Bush's, et al's) complicity.

So, why did Bush want Osama bin Laden from the Taliban in the first place? Was he sure that they wouldn't give him up without evidence?

Now, just how afraid was Bush that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would attack within U.S. borders in any attack not coordinated with and approved by the neocons? He had little to no such fears.

Bush did all of that (was the front man) to keep the "War on Terrorism" alive for an excuse for the U.S. with Israel and Britain to takeover the whole Middle East, which if one looks at the maps where the U.S. is now calling the shots, is quickly becoming part of the Empire in the most megalomaniacal sense.

We've read recently that as a sign to Iran and others, Egypt, which is headed by a U.S. propped-up dictator, Hosni Mubarak, allowed an Israeli submarine, no doubt equipped with nuclear missiles, to go through the Suez Canal. We've also read that the Saudi Royal Family, another antidemocratic, fascistic, U.S. propped-up dictatorial regime, has announced that it will allow the Israelis to over fly the Saudi Kingdom in an air raid on Iran. Add to this the recent asinine statement of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that the U.S. would not block such an attack, even where Israel has provided no more evidence against Iran than has been so far presented, which is absolutely zero, and one is left to conclude that the Empire is floating all of this to gauge the attention span, awareness, understanding, and resolve of the righteous-minded.

Speak out now loudly and widely that they will all yet be held to account for hard, substantiated, publicly provided evidence or watch it all unfold and be complicit yourselves.

Hosni Mubarak is nominally Sunni. The Saudis profess Islam as Sunnis, but they are forced to pretend greater devotion by reason of Mecca (the second choice of Mohammed for the geographical center of his misleading religion) being within their borders. King Hussein of Jordan is on Obama's lap as well. Certainly, Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan is there, as evidenced by his willingness to destroy his own people on orders from Obama. Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq may baulk as much as possible for a show (being Shia), but he does not defy the U.S. where it matters. The U.S. fortress embassy is to remain. The U.S. bases are to be consolidated but some forward troops are to remain just in case. The oil will flow but only as okayed by the U.S. That's the crux. If anyone in Iraq tries to gain ultimate control of Iraqi oil, he is to be eliminated and replaced one way or another. Al-Maliki and all other Iraqis know this full well, despite Bush's ambiguous proclamations that the oil under Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. The war was first and foremost to control oil. Bush and Cheney didn't invade for the sand or even the precious water. Oil is still big money. Money buys individual souls and whole nations and eventually the world, so hopes the person on the planet richest in mammon, who is not Bill Gates but whose identity is rather completely hidden from public view.

So, what areas are at all still in mundane question? Syria is majority Sunni with some Shia and not completely on board with the Empire, yet. Lebanon is in turmoil, but as the Empire's proxy, Israel is largely responsible for handling them directly, much in the fashion Zardari is now "handling" the Pashtuns. Turkey is a NATO member, and while it has it's concerns about the Kurds, it's been allowed to show the Kurds that the U.S. will not sacrifice Turkey for Kurdish impunity. So, concerning the Stans that fall outside the former Soviet Union and the other Islamic nations in the area, only Iran stands squarely and defiantly against Anglo-American-Israeli imperial domination.

The U.S. neocons (Anglo-American-Israeli worldly and clearly self-admitted Machiavellian empire-builders) are doing all the things in their minds to demonize and destabilize the Iranian Islamic theocracy. They point to all the evils, and even concerning the more righteous aspects, they twist those too to cause the gullible to perceive them as more evil than the U.S. alternative.

I don't hold with Islamic theocracy. Obviously, I don't though hold with the neocons. In fact, the neocons are wickeder, even wickedest.

Obama is a neocon. Know it. He's a liar. Don't trust him, ever.

Cross-posted at:


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.