Obama Administration and Neocons Want Totally Evil, Unconstitutional, Un-American Indefinite Detention

Look, Obama administration and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, you can't declare a war where the enemy is just anyone you feel like labeling the "enemy" (where you have no demonstrable evidence against them) and then grab people from where ever you want and hold them for the rest of their lives. You do that, and you are monsters in need of overthrowing.

I have seen nothing where you are even attempting to protect the innocent who may be (and some have been) swept up as so-called enemy-combatants or terrorists, etc.

We have clear evidence of totally innocent people having been "extraordinarily rendered" (kidnapped and sent to torture regimes). If there had been zero due process for them, as proposed by that unrepentant, moral-midget, Zionist-Fascist sycophant, Lindsey Graham, we would still not know anything about their fate.

Ghailani was never going to walk out of the courtroom a free man because the Obama Justice Department, from Attorney General Eric Holder on down, has made clear that if any high-profile terrorism suspects are acquitted, they will never go free. They would be held as enemy combatants instead.

via Obama Administration Weighs Indefinite Detention : NPR.

You will note the term "suspects" there. These are not proven terrorists. How many are totally innocent? Regardless, the "war" against "terrorists" is not always that at all. In many cases, the war is against people defending their own lands against illegal and immoral invasion.

The US had zero "legal" right to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban had offered Osama bin Laden to the US provided the US provide evidence of his guilt. The US could not do that. It had none and still has none.

Furthermore, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely blatantly illegal. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein had not blocked the weapons inspectors at all. We all knew that. Bush wanted to side-step the UN inspections all together. Only Colin Powell insisted on UN cover, with Tony Blair's backing on that. Powell, of course, wasn't worried about truth. He was concerned with giving ammunition to the Anti-War Movement.

Bush, Cheney, and their neocon/Zionist cabinet and the AIPAC, etc., drummed up those wars for Empire, pure and simple.

Right now, they are drumming for war against Iran in much the same way — without a shred of evidence — not a shred.

At least Obama's Pentagon has been more willing to say no to the Zionists. However, Obama lost the vast majority of the political capital he had by saying one thing but doing the other concerning the banksters, so the neocons pretending to be Tea Party Members have the House and will often swing the Senate with backroom money deals from the Jewish Lobby.

It's time to clean house. The neocons must go.


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.