Cyber War Plus: "Antifascist Calling...: New Leaks Reveal Insider Tips on S&P's U.S. Credit Downgrade to Killer-Drone Firm"

While firms such as VDI, Boeing, General Atomics and Lockheed Martin hawk drone technologies that transform human beings into red mist, and do so as their "patriotic" (and highly-profitable) duty as the Pentagon wholeheartedly embraces hypermodern forms of robotized mass murder, the bill for American hubris, long past due, is coming faster than most people think.

via Antifascist Calling...: New Leaks Reveal Insider Tips on S&P's U.S. Credit Downgrade to Killer-Drone Firm.

I remember not too long ago when people were laughing at me when I said that the Cyber War had begun in earnest when Anonymous came out swinging against PayPal, VISA, Amazon, and others over their colluding with the US government to censor WikiLeaks in WikiLeaks exposing, among other high crimes, American war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

One may debate some aspects of the "Collateral Murder" video, but when the US helicopter opened fire on clearly unarmed men trying to save an also unarmed but severely wounded man, the US military committed a war crime. No one was held to account. The video was classified (a cover-up). It took Bradley Manning, if he was the one, and WikiLeaks to get the truth out to the world.

Anonymous was clearly angered by WikiLeaks' treatment at the hands of the US powers that be. It counter-attacked, hasn't stopped yet, and doesn't appear even close to being stopped. One suspects that there are a number of people working with or in Anonymous who are possibly going to be caught at some point, but it also appears that some within Anonymous are as sophisticated at computer networking and software hacking as any in the world and are equally as good at remaining untraceable.

I hope most people realize that Anonymous in a round about way is not often breaking the law but rather revealing illegalities and collusion in that in high places.

It's difficult to know exactly the position to take about them because their motto includes that they don't forgive. Why they feel the need to make such a harsh statement is unclear to me. I would prefer they drop that.

I'm not sure about everything they've leaked. I read that they released the personal data of BART customers. That will hurt BART, but it will also harm people who might otherwise sympathize with and support much of what Anonymous is doing but who have little financial alternative but to utilize BART to get to and from their slave-wage jobs. I hope Anonymous and the others (they are proliferating at a quick rate — too fast to remember all their names and deeds) will take care to avoid damaging the innocent otherwise caught up in the crossfire.


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.