WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
The linked article by Jonathan Azaziah, "WIKILEAKS IS POISON II: DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MYTH : Veterans Today," is long and lame. That's being charitable. Bear with me. It's very important that the dangerous distortions be rebutted.
You might want to read it with a split vertical screen to go back and forth from it to mine, or you can usually use Ctrl-Tab to flit back and forth between browser tabs.
Well, here goes:
I never fell for Barack Obama for a second. Julian Assange and Barack Obama are totally different situations.
The article claims that WikiLeaks hasn't leaked leaks. What the Hell was the "Collateral Murder" video, a Mossad psyop? What a completely stupid thing it is to say that WikiLeaks hasn't leaked anything. That was a major, major leak. It stunned the whole planet, frankly.
I'll be quoting the article's author, Jonathan Azaziah, here on and off again and supplying my take. I'll try keeping the quotes to a minimum.
"The questions are simple: If the Zionist entity isn't behind Wikileaks, how did its officials know it wouldn't become the subject of international media scrutiny? If Wikileaks wasn't protecting the Zionist agenda, why would Israeli officials intransigently say their illegal occupying entity remained unharmed after the leaks?" The Israeli officials knew because they protected their secrets better than did the U.S. Also, there are Zionists in the State Department to see to the Zionists needs on that end. Also, the State Department had already prepped the Zionists. Hillary Clinton went around warning everyone that the leaks contained whatever they contained. There are also Zionists working at the New York Times. How many different answers do you need? Only fools will conclude that you've provided evidence of Julian Assange's Zionism. He could have Zionist leanings, but you haven't demonstrated it with that.
How many times does someone have to remind you that the Cablegate cables were written by State Department suck-ups? There is no way in Hell that they were going to start spewing what Abe Foxman would immediately term "anti-Semitism." "Anti-Semitism" in the Hillary Clinton State Department is a firing-offense. You write as if the State Department employees wrote as beloved members of the KKK (Jew haters; all Jews), but it's all been covered up by Julian Assange.
As far as the WikiLeaks leaked cables echoing much information already exposed in alternative media, you act as if the low-level leaks should completely blow away everyone in the alternative press. The alternative press has been exposing what the insiders really believe and that the mainstream has been avoiding. Now WikiLeaks comes along substantiating the alternative media, and you say that proves Julian Assange is Mossad. That's just plain dumb. He could be Mossad, but your assertion about him prove zero.
Wow, your low level of "evidence" would see so many innocent people punished it's sickening to think about. Where's your heart for due process of law? I don't see it anywhere in this article. I see just the opposite.
Also, you write as if the Cablegate cables are WikiLeaks' writings. WikiLeaks did not write the cables. The contents of the cables do not represent WikiLeaks. Your article is very suspicious as to what mind-set is really behind it. When WikiLeaks editorializes, that's WikiLeaks, not the cables themselves.
"Don't expect to see any of this information in the Cablegate documents though; WikiLeaks must protect Israel at all costs." When WikiLeaks releases damaging leaks concerning Israel, will you apologize and admit that you were wrong to hold a kangaroo court of public opinion on your blog and then crucify Julian Assange before he's even had a chance to respond? You're verging on fascism if you haven't already crossed the line. I think you have.
If Julian Assange turns out to be guilty of being a Zionist, the most I'll have to say is that I waited for the hard evidence. This is not like Building 7. There is no prima fascia evidence against Julian Assange.
By the way, what happened to your source, Leah Abramowitz, over at Syria Truth? http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12/14/december-14-2010-steps-daniel-domscheit-berg-openleaks-bribery-allegations-against-julian-assange-wikileaks.html They've not answered any question put to them so far. I hope they do, but it's very suspicious that Veterans Today has gone from hedging to all-out lynching Julian Assange. It's like reading To Kill a Mockingbird again only Freedom of the Press in the world is on the line and you're helping the fascists.
Now, why exactly are you working it so hard to get people thinking falsely that low-level State Department cables and military field-messages should necessarily reveal every secret CIA operation in the world? If they were to, I would be wondering how the CIA could still be in existence. Your expectations, which I even wonder if they are genuine or just flashy to wow your readers into genuflecting before your footnotes, are just totally unreasonable. Your enemy is stupid but not that stupid. The CIA and DIA are just not going to put their most secret ops in State Department cables or regular communications from the military grunts on the frontlines. There may be hints, but they'd have been insanely stupid to put the details there. To think otherwise is setting yourself up for failure. It is also to undermine all leaking endeavors.
Do your readers even realize that you are telling people not to give leaks to WikiLeaks. No one who has given WikiLeaks leaked info, and there's tons of it yet to be vetted and released, has been exposed by WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning exposed himself. You're saying to people that the coming leaks concerning the Bank in question (many are expecting it to be the Bank of America) should never have been given to WikiLeaks. You're working to shut down leaks in general by writing these foregone-conclusion hit pieces on Assange.
You are demanding that WikiLeaks mention things concerning which you have zero evidence WikiLeaks has any leaked information. You are demanding that WikiLeaks mention things concerning which it has not necessarily had a decent opportunity to digest and vet. Yours is a completely unreasonable position. WikiLeaks started out small and has grown and continues to do so. It will become better and better at moving documents, etc. You want instant gratification without carrying any of the water.
WikiLeaks is not a typical newspaper. You don't characterize correctly at all. You want it to have been just another alternative-press type operation. It is a publisher and has editorialized; but on its official website, it has stuck to the leaked materials. You're asking for it to have chimed in on every global and local event regardless of WikiLeaks core function. They could not have done that and remain focused on the task at hand. They did not have the people or resources or equipment to do that from the outset.
What you've done is rail against Zionism and blamed WikiLeaks for either not having the inside smoking-gun documentation or not having been able to handle it yet. If it has it, it will likely get to it and then release unless the Empire does its illegal work against them and prevails for a little season.
Even one of your source documents says that back in 2007, WikiLeaks was already getting nearly "100,000 documents/emails a day." That was then before they became so famous. You though criticize them for obtaining the same software the CIA uses to data mine. I think they were smart to get that software. You don't know how they got it either. They are as advanced in computer tech as any group on the planet. They are far from a group of teen-hackers. I won't say more about their methods. I've studied the methods enough to know they work. I don't break into other people's servers, etc.
For my readers, I'm moving from topic to topic mostly as presented in the linked article. Occasionally, I'll digress a bit, as I just did.
There's a crime syndicate in Israel. The cables prove that the U.S. government knows it yet supports the Zionists. That's bad for the Zionists, and it's bad for the U.S. neocons. The fact that the cables contain the neocon spin is not proof of anything against WikiLeaks. Again, WikiLeaks didn't write the cables, contrary to the way you continually attempt to characterize things to deliberately mislead your readers. You don't say that WikiLeaks might be bad. Based solely upon what appears to be Israel's closer-held secretiveness, you say WikiLeaks is definitely Mossad.
I wrote that the consolidation of intelligence and sharing would only come back to haunt the US. It can't win. The whole system is fatally flawed. Even though I'm not a libertarian, I'm on record that Ron Paul has it right on this. We shouldn't be doing things to bring on a supposed need for all the cloak and dagger garbage.
Everything you've written could have been written as a scathing attack on the Empire without at all attacking WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. You could have focused right in on the cables themselves and how the cables show the way the State Department spread crap internally, which it did and does. You completely miss that opportunity and rather made WikiLeaks the focus.
You know, without all the cables being released, you wouldn't have such a platform for rebuking the cable authors. The Cablegate release has been a boon to those who want to discuss the facts and to point to how the State Department lackeys twist those facts even internally to each other.
Think of the several millions of low-level people, such as Bradley Manning, a mere Private, and what impact the internal psyops has had on them. It's been huge. Bradley, however, saw through it and leaked it for the world to see. You though want to trash his action.
Where do you think he is, in a Country Club right now? Do you think the stories from those who have seen him since he's been in prison are fake? They are working to break him because he leaked what he did. Let what we do to him be an object lesson to those who would brave leaking documents to WikiLeaks, yet you trash it all as some Mossad op. Hogwash! If and when there is real proof, okay. You've provided nothing. You've rather hurt the cause of people leaking.
"...connection between Ledeen and Wikileaks isn't all that surprising." What a terrible twisting that is. There is no basis in fact to state that there is a connection between Ledeen and Wikileaks. The term "connection" there as you've used it is nothing more then a cheap psychological trick to play on your unsuspecting readers. It's foul. If Ledeen has a connection to WikiLeaks, it doesn't have to be as you've suggested at all. Connection suggests that WikiLeaks works directly with Ledeen on some level. You have no evidence of that. Someone associated with WikiLeaks may have been in contact with Ledeen, but the same could be said about Veterans Today — "six degrees of separation" is the appropriate concept here.
How do you handle Reason Magazines scathing attack on WikiLeaks for being an anti-Zionist organization and even holocaust denying? http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12/17/flip-side-of-gordon-duffs-attacks-on-julian-assange-assanges-extremist-holocaust-denying-employees-reason-magazine.html
How do you handle that Le Monde has said there's plenty more to come and that Israel is not immune? http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12/16/i-expect-to-be-vindicated-bloggers-claim-wikileaks-struck-deal-with-israel-over-diplomatic-cables-leaks.html
It also appears that this article was written by Hezbollah or at least someone in sync with Hezbollah. Now, I don't have a problem with Hezbollah issuing statements, but Shari and Hindutva are really both problems. Also, the Muslims invaded India, not the other way around. The Roman Catholics did it too and then the Anglicans. Hindutva is largely an overcorrection to all of that.
Those in the State Department and US military are imperialists. Of course they are writing things in support of that endeavor. Why insult your readers so? Why mislead them so? The people of the cables, not WikiLeaks, are behind the "Collateral Murder." Your position claims that "Collateral Murder" is a limited hangout affair. That's rubbish. That's like saying that Michael Moore's "Sicko" was actually the secret work of the Health Insurance industry.
Look, what I want but apparently you don't, is for some CIA officer to leak internal Top-Top Secret CIA documentation to WikiLeaks. It would be great if that were to happen. It would be great if someone would leak the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos and videos. It would be great if the Able Danger database the military claims was destroyed would turn up on WikiLeaks. It would be great if the CIA torture tapes would show up. Everything you're doing works against that, not for it.
You wrote concerning the Iranian elections that WikiLeaks called it a "coup d'etat." Where? You're full of it. A cable called it that. WikiLeaks didn't. If WikiLeaks called it that somewhere else, then maybe you'd have something to point to. You are though claiming, yet again (ad nauseam), that WikiLeaks wrote the cable by saying that WikiLeaks called the election a coup d'etat. Here's thefor it. Nowhere there will you find WikiLeaks making any claims concerning the election one way or the other. So why don't you stop your deceptive tactics against WikiLeaks and stick to the truth instead?
You fault Erdogan for being exactly as portrayed in the cables but you blame WikiLeaks for being a Mossad operation designed to split Erdogan from Iran. Make up your mind?
Oh, then you actually wrote, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has slammed Wikileaks as psychological warfare; he further said that the information wasn't leaked, but organized, and went on to say, 'We are friends with the regional countries and mischievous acts will not affect relations.'" You are dreaming that the Arab leaders didn't say what was attributed to them in the cables. I am often impressed by Ahmadinejad; but on this, he looks the fool. It's amazing that you would echo it as if it's true.
The alternative press has been reporting for many, many years now that the Saudi Royals do not like the Iranians. You say the cables are to be deemed useless because they only echo what is already "known" (but never substantiated before by attributable leaks). Then you turn around and say the exact opposite by way of your use of Ahmadinejad's quote. Really, get your story straight.
You fault WikiLeaks for having CIA "connections" while Gordon Duff has reportedly had George Tenet's phone number on speed dial. What's that about? George Tenet is the author of the Worldwide Attack Matrix. He also completely caved concerning the story that no one had informed the White House that the intel on Iraq could be crap. Tenet had openly admitted that it was running about 50/50 at the CIA, meaning half of the CIA was trying to fend off the garbage coming out of the Office of Special Plans at Rumsfeld's Pentagon. So what's it to be? Are we to crucify anyone and everyone with CIA Directors on speed dial? I'm not for that.
You actually have the nerve to write, "Wikileaks is being heavily funded by Mossad." You have no evidence of that whatsoever. Show me the evidence to substantiate this emphatic statement of yours. Your source document http://www.daily.pk/?p=19280 says, "In China, Wikileaks is suspected of having Mossad connections." It also says, "Our sources in Asia believe that Wikileaks ran afoul of their CIA paymasters after it was discovered that some of Wikileaks's 'take' was being diverted to Mossad instead of to their benefactors at Langley." Nowhere there does it say, "Wikileaks is being heavily funded by Mossad." It also quotes an internal WikiLeaks email as saying, "If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then fleece we will." That hardly supports your position that Julian is CIA.
Oh brother, you actually assert global warming is a hoax. Sure, and cigarettes never caused lung cancer. Oh, I know, the warning on the packages is really there so we would have a global dictator. You send people to your videos and I'll mine to mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc
Assange turned himself in. So what? You say that Scotland Yard knew where he was. You say he wasn't arrested. Hello! People turn themselves in for (are you ready?) arrest. That's right. He was placed under arrest. You also though go on to say he was arrested. Again, make up your mind. The article you cited http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334899/Scotland-Yard-arrest-wanted-WikiLeaks-boss-today.html says, "It today emerged that Mr Assange only escaped arrest yesterday because the Swedish authorities filled out an Interpol arrest warrant incorrectly."
The walls had been closing in on Assange for months. Everyone reading the news both mainstream and alternative should have been aware of that. You know, the CIA doesn't know everything. The NSA doesn't know everything. They also can't do whatever they want. Everything has to be figured. People don't always react as planned. Human beings are still not perfectly predictable. Even with all of the computers networked together to try to figure out humanity, there are and will be unknown unknowns.
You also assert "Sweden's rape charges against Assange were dropped already back in August." However, the charges were dropped but the order to pick him up for further questioning was reinstated. Your point isn't upheld. There are competing legal jurisdictions and there is local and regional public opinion to worry about. You're viewing it all as if you're in a vacuum of understanding. You have lots of documentation that you try to piece together, but the picture you're drawing with it, contrary to what you're hoping, is coming out a hodge-podge. It's inconsistent. You're painting yourself into a corner. You're getting tangled up in your talk.
As for lawyers, they represent all sorts. A lawyer can represent an ultraconservative and a radical liberal at the same time. Did you bother to check to see if such is the case concerning Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent? He's described as a "passionate supporter of human rights" and "one of the best advocates for freedom of expression." http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3759409.ece When a person is in trouble with the "Law," he often wants the best legal representation he can get. http://www.fsilaw.com/Profiles/Mark%20Stephens.aspx Somehow, Julian Assange has experienced representation. There must be some people with some money who are interested in helping. Do you have money? If you were in legal trouble, would you be able to afford the "best" attorneys.
Julian's going to need it because he's up against some really illogical people, such as Joe Lieberman, the rabid Zionist U.S. Senator who wouldn't hesitate to waterboard Julian if he could get away with it. You though think that old Joe is Julian's secret Mossad buddy. We'll see. If you're right, Joe's doing a pretty good job of simply pretending he wants the book thrown at Assange.
Holy Spirit (not said in vain), you're actually opposed to "free market capitalism." Well, I'm not for coercing anyone, but I'm opposed to usury and capitalism too. That though is not relevant as to whether or not Julian is Mossad. For Heaven's sake, if every "free market capitalist" is Mossad, you've already lost the battle and the war — better give up. I'm for the Christian Commons http://www.causes.com/causes/99753?m=e5767d02&recruiter_id=13875729 myself, but that's another post.
If we don't allow Julian to speak out, if we don't stop the evil lies, if people can't stop the illegal war (never mind the just-war theory that I say is bunk but Julian believes in), we won't be able to say what we want whether that would be "free market capitalism" or something else.
You claim about Julian that "he glorified Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch, and his elitist father, Keith Murdoch, citing them as sources of journalistic integrity and truth, and then comparing Wikileaks' efforts to those of the Murdoch family." He did nothing of the kind, as I clearly pointed out in my post covering the subject: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12/09/julian-assange-proven-zionist-israeli-mossad-agent-prove-it.html In that post I wrote to Gordon Duff as follows:
Hello, Gordon. Julian is calling Rupert back to better roots. It doesn't show that Julian is "working...for Israeli ultranationalist Murdoch." You make it sound as if he's on the payroll. You don't have evidence of that. He's working indirectly for Murdoch only provided Rupert sees some light and changes his style quite a bit.
What Julian wants is Murdoch to stand up against the leadership of Australia that is decidedly Zionist. Haven't you heard Julia Gillard railing against all things anti-Zionist? She's hyper. She's not supporting Julian even slightly.
You may visit the post to see Julia Gillard railing against 9/11 Truth at the insistence of the Zionist while she also does nothing in support of Assange. It's all part of an exquisitely choreographed worldwide CIA/Mossad operation though while you and I are on the outside for being what?
You call it glorifying Rupert Murdoch and his father simply to remind Rupert of how Rupert's father once stood up to the Empire? I call it a smart move. Wouldn't it be nice were it to work on Rupert's heart even if only a bit? Perhaps I'm too Dickensian at heart though for you. I really liked it when Scrooge repented before it was too late.
As with your awful twisting concerning what Assange wrote concerning Keith Murdoch while Assange was trying to enlist Murdoch's help by getting Murdoch to turn to speaking truth to power, you twist Julian's points concerning Benjamin Netanyahu whom he did not praise but simply stated the obvious and the facts.
Netanyahu is a "sophisticated politician." What do you call him? Many would call him a crafty S.O.B. As the kids say, "same difference."
If I'm reading him correctly, Julian said in so many words that Julian hoped that some good would come of Iran learning what the Arabs had been saying to the U.S. behind Iran's back. I don't know that Julian is wrong about that hope. Of course, from Netanyahu's position, Benjamin will spin anything he can to Zionist advantage. What do you expect?
So what if Netanyahu said that the Cablegate cables were what they were and are, which is the handy work of the pro-Zionist U.S. State Department? The revelations about all the distortion concerning the war "efforts" though has not helped the war "effort" against Iran at all, unless Iran continues being absolutely stupid about interpreting the cables rather than spinning them against war in general, as I do.
By the way, Julian didn't write an editorial for the paper. The paper's editor writes the paper's editorials. Julian is not that paper's editor. He wrote a letter that was used as an op-ed. There's nothing wrong with that. I've done exactly the same. I've had my work published as a letter to the editor. I wasn't in agreement with the editorials of the paper when that happened. Anyone could have twisted my words the way you've twisted Assange's here.
"What kind of whistle-blower gives his leaks to Zionist-owned, corporate, elitist newspapers and then writes an editorial for one?" Are you claiming that all five of the Cablegate-releasing newspapers are Zionist-owned, corporate, elitist newspapers? I've seen some pretty hard-hitting anti-Zionist articles in the Guardian for one. On balance, their articles sure were against all the lies in the lead up to the Iraq War. I visited there regularly at the time just to read some reasonable sanity. Also, is the ideology of Le Monde really elitist in your view? All of the papers have at time shown a flare for defiance. All major papers are subject to huge pressures though. Historically it's been that the larger the paper, the greater the pressure and infiltration.
"What kind of hero of the oppressed people hires a Zionist lawyer that defends the torture of Palestinians and the institutions that cover it up?" Has Mark done that? Did you supply links to documents to support that claim against him? I didn't see any. If you're basing this attack upon the source material you've supplied, it's baseless. Perhaps he is a Zionist, but wouldn't it be better to get it from him even if quoted somewhere else (but at least where he could see it and defend himself against it or qualify it)? You might want to be careful about him. He's an expert in libel law and cases.
There actually are Zionists who are against torture of Palestinians too. Remember the Goldstone Report. Goldstone was a Zionists when he wrote it. Maybe he still is. I don't think he's for torture, but he'll have to speak for himself. There are though Zionists who are against it. They may be low in percentages, but the point is still valid.
"What kind of freedom fighter accepts an award from the Rothschild family?" Did he know of the connections? Do the Rothschilds really micromanage the Economist? I've seen articles in the Economist with which I agree. The Rothschilds fancy themselves at least some of the time as not particularly evil, you know. They really believe it. Not all of them may believe it, but they aren't all exactly likeminded. Of course, their money keeps most of them rather insulated, even sheltered and naive about the people. I'd have to know more about the situation at the Economist and what Julian knew before coming to the sweeping conclusion at which you've arrived about Assange.
No, I don't support the banksters. I stand squarely against them. However, I'm not going to do to them the evil they directly and indirectly cause to others. I'm going to speak frankly to them and call them to turn, repent, and atone to the best of their abilities. I'm going to tell them, per the Gospels, what will happen to their souls if they do not.
"What kind of defender of truth mentions Iran's nuclear program as if it was a threat to 'peace' while totally ignoring hundreds of Israeli nukes?" Did he do that? Is Julian Assange convinced that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program? Does he ignore Israeli nukes? Have you asked about these things? Have you seen this in writing from him? If so, please point me to it so I may read it for myself because based upon your track record of mischaracterizing written material, I don't trust your judgment or ability to know what Julian is saying about much of anything.
"Julian Assange is a Zionist shill, bought and paid for by the Israel-first elite, Mossad and the CIA, planted in the activism community as the front man for the new generation of COINTELPRO." Wow, you're so sure. I hope you are wrong. What I've read of your source material here, I actually am leaning more to that he isn't what you've claimed than I was before reading your entire article word for word — how many other people got through it?
You don't end it there though. You state: "Wikileaks' first official leak was a despicable pack of lies against the Somali Resistance (240)"
However, the article in The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all actually says:
In December, 2006, WikiLeaks posted its first document: a "secret decision," signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, a Somali rebel leader for the Islamic Courts Union, that had been culled from traffic passing through the Tor network to China. The document called for the execution of government officials by hiring "criminals" as hit men. Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, "Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?"
What part of "is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?" is invisible to you? You have the nerve to use the expression "despicable pack of lies." Look in the mirror. It is you who is spreading a despicable pack of distortions and wholly unsubstantiated allegations as if they are proven facts.
You say, "Julian Assange has admitted to having connections to Australian intelligence (242), which has been reporting first to Mossad for decades." Look, here you are again phrasing things in the worst possible way you can conjure up. Using the term admit, is loaded in this context. It sounds as if he's been hiding something and has only given up the information after being sweated. Here you are using the term "connections" (again) without clarifying. You make it incumbent upon the reader to go check to see the context. So, what is the context? Someone in Australian intelligence somehow, we don't know who or how, got word to Julian Assange that "he could face a campaign to discredit him after leaking the documents." Now, if hearing that warning from Australian intelligence makes him connected with Australian intelligence, then you are using an extremely loose connotation of the term that I suggest is designed to mislead your readers into falsely assuming that Assange has some running collaborative relationship with Australian intelligence or something worst. Why don't you stop trying to couch every last thing in the worst way and so utterly loosely? It's terrible journalism, extremely intellectually dishonest, and highly misleading and suspicious.
What do Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has to do with the four or so closing paragraphs in your article?
It's telling that you complain that Julian is not anti-war, per se, while you laud a large number of people who also are not anti-war — that is they are not opposed to going to war under certain circumstances. Why the double-standard where Julian Assange is concerned?
As I said at the outset, your article is lame. It gives anti-Zionism a bad reputation for being very loose with the facts.
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)