Wayne Madsen did not say that a Republican Party consultant has "alleged" to Wayne that WikiLeaks has been used by the CIA to set up a pretext for clamping down on freedom of political and other speech, press, and expression on the Internet. Wayne crafted his piece in a way that clearly says Wayne wants us to take this hiding Republican Party consultant's word for it.
Do you remember Scooter Libby feeding garbage to Judith Miller at the New York Times? The US ended up bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq, which it still does, and all on a pack of lies from Republicans and neocons. Yet, Wayne doesn't even say the word "alleges"?
Of course, the reason this Wayne Madsen possible wild speculation/propaganda would feature on the Veterans Today website is because Veterans Today's Gordon Duff has been out to do anything and everything to throw mud at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks no matter how unsubstantiated. Any conspiracy-theory bit is handed out by Gordon as if it's the Gospel rather than speculation while at the same time, here and there, Gordon might hedge by saying the occasional (rare) "we (Veterans Today) don't really know."
By the way Gordon Duff and Veterans Today censored my comments there which comments you may still read on the RLCC website: WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
By Wayne Madsen at veteranstoday.com
WMR has learned from a long-time Republican Party consultant that the CIA used Sweden to launder the transfer to Wikileaks of carefully screened and redacted State Department cables and the subsequent release of the cables to pre-selected corporate news media entities. Sweden was chosen because of its so-called "press freedom and freedom of expression" traditions in an effort to make the release of the cables by Wikileaks appear to be unconnected to a covert CIA and Pentagon psychological operations program designed to place further controls on the Internet.
You will notice that zero evidence is given to substantiate the accusation and that in the style of Veterans Today, Wayne talks all about all sorts of other things that might raise legitimate questions (but only questions).
Why didn't Wayne write it the right way by saying that it's only an allegation and that he hasn't given out anything more than hearsay, which is generally not admissible as testimony?
Look, it's not as if Wayne is new to this. He was once new. I was once new. Also, he's not writing something as a prophet. There's a huge difference between mundane journalism and prophesying.
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)