This is a video well worth watching. It goes up nearly to the point where Julian Assange turned himself in, in Britain for arrest and questioning concerning what has turned out to be not rape at all but rather "sex by surprise" or a condom that broke during sexual intercourse — hardly rape. There are some other questions concerning the events such as that Julian had multiple sex partners and did not inform at least one of the women, perhaps both, involved in leveling the charges against him and that when attempted to be contacted, Julian was not available to the woman or women by phone. He said he often has to change his phone, etc., for security reasons. The charges were dropped, so to speak, but then renewed under what many believe was likely CIA and other pressure from the U.S. government.
Anyway, what this video does above all else for me right at the moment is provide a clear rebuke of those who have made the wildly inaccurate claim that WikiLeaks has provided no evidence of things that were not already known in the alternative press. More importantly about that, the alternative press had to rely upon substantiation from outside the U.S. government. The WikiLeaks process provided corroboration from within the U.S. government for much of what the alternative press had been saying and the U.S. government had been denying.
The most powerful revelation in this video for me was that the Collateral Murder video was not the only such video. The blowing up of the building with the non-combatant man simply walking by, the video of the U.S. murderers shooting to death and in cold blood the man who is surrendering, who was probably not even doing anything to merit the initial attack (driving a bit too fast to suit the U.S. military — who would want to creep along on those streets?) is just more proof as to the value of WikiLeaks.
To those who claim that WikiLeaks is a Zionist operation, I would like to know specifically how exposing military murders and such aids the Zionists cause. The Zionists are being looked at with the same eye that is judging the U.S.
We shall see how the allegations of WikiLeaks being a Zionist operation pan out. If they are true, then it will be leaking that will have shown it. See my immediately preceding post on that.
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)