Why we stand with WikiLeaks | SocialistWorker.org

...even the complicit U.S. media has begun to recognize implications of the attack on Assange. If Assange and WikiLeaks can be prosecuted, then surely any reporter or publication releasing classified information or information obtained by government whistleblowers would also liable for prosecution.


...the Obama administration has aggressively pursued Assange—and is challenging the overall right of the press to reveal government information, even when it includes evidence of previously hidden war crimes.


The Bush administration was notorious for its attacks on civil liberties and free speech, and progressives condemned them. But it's now clear that the Obama administration has continued the trend—and appears to be taking an even more severe stance against those who would leak government information.


...massive amounts of information to WikiLeaks, including the "Collateral Murder" video showing U.S. troops engaging in the murder of civilians in Iraq, documents showing U.S. complicity in war crimes and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan....


... international leaders—who care little for women's rights in the best of times—are using the very serious allegations of rape and sexual assault as a cover for their drive to prosecute Assange for his work with WikiLeaks. [This is sad but likely true. The "charge" is a condom breaking. The "raped" women later reportedly bragged on Twitter that they had been with him. The tweets were later deleted. That's tampering to evidence that could help to exonerate Julian Assange.]


In reality, the prosecution of Assange is part of a government war on dissent that comes in the context of raids and subpoenas of left-wing and antiwar activists in Chicago and the Twin Cities seeking to criminalize support for, among other things, the growing movement for justice for the Palestinian people.

via Why we stand with WikiLeaks | SocialistWorker.org.

So, you're an American libertarian capitalist or a self-professed Christian. What are you going to do? Are you going to turn your back on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights? How can Big Brother silencing evidence of war crimes and other crimes of government be libertarian? How can it be Christian? It cannot is the answer.

If Julian Assange cannot publish documents and other evidence leaked from the U.S. government (one of the heads of the Biblical Beast), then how safe will any publication be, including the Bible or even parts thereof?

There was a time when it was illegal to disseminate the scriptures. Whose side are you on?

If you are for Assange being able to continue exposing government crimes and crimes by major corporations, it does not mean that you agree with all-things Julian Assange.

We aren't talking about within your religious institutions where people are there voluntarily. We're talking about out in the worldly world were there are lost sheep who need the truth about the crimes of worldly Empire.

Most socialists are Marxists and atheists; however, if they will allow me to speak the Gospel, how can I say they may not speak against it? Let the debate be open. Let the people decide. Some things are beyond the pale, but the question of whether or not spirit versus only materialism is not going to be settled by violence and coercion.

My tolerance is not a license for others to gain power to take away tolerance of my Christian beliefs. Tolerating homosexuals decades ago was not my way of saying that one day you should throw me in prison or kill me as my reward because I never went so far as to renounce my belief that homosexuality is a fundamental flaw on whatever level.

The U.S. is heading headlong into fascism led by the likes of Zionist U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. Stand up against him with me.

"I'm opposed to you, Joe. It's time for you to 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 WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.