Court Decision Before Iraq Vote May Complicate Result -

The most recent election has apparently given Ayad Allawi's party/coalition, "Iraqiya," the largest bloc of seats in the Iraqi parliament, which is supposed to mean that, that party will be given the first opportunity to form a ruling coalition, meaning obtaining the agreement of other parties to join it to make up 163 seats or more in the parliament and naming a new Prime Minister, thereby replacing Nouri al-Maliki and his "State of Law " bloc.

"However, on Thursday, the day before the vote results were announced, the prime minister's office quietly went to the Supreme Federal Court, Iraq's highest court, and asked for an interpretation of Article 76, which the court issued speedily — and in Maliki's favor. The court ruled that the president would choose not the leader of the voting bloc with the highest number of seats when the results are ratified, but the leader with the most seats after the new parliament is seated." (Source:

The following is not hindsight: If the George W. Bush administration had not fully embraced the neocon-Zionist plan but only toppled the Saddam Hussein regime with a very minimum of violence, if Bush had protected the Iraqi museums and document archives, if he had instigated a curfew with full policing, if he had not undertaken de-Ba'athification, if he had not listened to Henry Kissinger and had not sent Paul Bremer to act as viceroy (dictator) making law ("laissez-faire," imperial, corporatist, capitalist) by decree, if he had allowed the Iraqi's to have the much fairer Constitution they had drafted, if he had said that American corporations cannot have Iraq's oil (contrary to his own Presidential Directive) and said that America only wants to partner with the Iraqi people for the mutual benefit of all, if he had seen to it that everyone had enough to eat and a home and electricity and clean water and proper sewage and the like, if he had protected the leading academics, if he had apologized for earlier American transgressions, if he had not executed Saddam Hussein but rather been as fair as possible considering American transgressions and mixed signals in the past, if he had treated the country as a policing matter for the civil authorities and had not sought to dictate while also creating a multi-year vacuum of thoughtful policy and practices, then millions of people would not have died and been made into refugees and the United States would not be so utterly hated in the world. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't even necessary to have removed Saddam Hussein. He was not beyond being reasoned with. Bush didn't try it. He didn't want to. He wasn't capable of it.

It's going to take a long time for the Iraqi people to sort out the mess created by the Bush-43 administration. At the same time, America will be breathing down Iraq's neck to see to it that Sharia never emerges, for if it were to, the oil would once again be out from under America's hegemonic control.

Another party is under Shiite Muqtada al-Sadr. His Iraqi National Alliance is close to Iran and violently fought against al-Maliki's U.S.-backed, Shiite squads that raided Najaf, once al-Sadr's stronghold.

Allawi was once Prime Minister and was backed, and is still backed by the United States occupation. The reason for that is that he's a secularist and somewhat employing Western-style "democracy." He's been a long-time foe of the Ba'athists (the semi-socialist, pan-Arab nationalist, not anti-spiritual party of Saddam Hussein and also in Syria and somewhat in Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt at the time in what has been termed "Nasserism"), of which he was once a member. He now goes along with "free market" economics, which is code for neoliberalism that is the domination of the world by the corporatist, banksters heading the IMF and World Bank that are, in turn, dominated by Wall Street and the City of London (albeit in a weakened condition on the surface at the moment).

Allawi helped the Bush-43 administration lie to the American people and the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which had long since been destroyed on account of the U.N. weapons inspection program. Allawi was head of the Iraqi National Accord, which is the group that came up with the infamous lie known as the "45 minutes" repeated by Tony Blair and George W. Bush and others. They deliberately spread the lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and could launch an attack on the West, such as London, within 45 minutes of giving the order.

Ayad Allawi was and remains a CIA asset. The general Iraqi people don't have access to the whole story. The American Mainstream Media is also not covering the details. They cut short on giving the background information. In-depth reporting is a thing of the past so that the short attention span of Americans can continue being conditioned into them. That way, the sociopathic leadership can get away with murder.

Here's another link that shed's some light (only some):

That article relies upon David Wurmser, a rabid Zionist and was under Douglas Feith at the Rumsfeld Pentagon. His neocon "credentials" are long. Understand though that Wurmser was writing during the Clinton administration that was not sufficiently Zionist to suit the Likudniks. Also, writing against Allawi was a way of elevating Ahmed Chalabi and Chalabi's group, much more interested in going along with all things Zionist.

You get some sense of this by considering "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which was an American neocon paper written for Netanyahu (

To see how the information can be extremely "managed," consider the Rumfeld Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans" ( That group used plenty of lies that came directly from Ahmed Chalabi's group.    


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.