Intelligence rarely meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required to convict in a U.S. court, said Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency.
Do you see what's wrong with Michael Hayden's statement there? Well, if not, it might not be that you too are stupid. It might simply be that you lack education in the particular field. Hayden has no such excuse. Once I point it out, you may consider it clever on Hayden's part. It's not. It's blatantly wrong at his level and therefore stupid.
You've heard the old saying that honesty is the best policy. Well, it the smart policy. That's what "best" there means. It doesn't mean that you have to divulge everything you know.
Under certain circumstances, you may admit that you refuse to answer even though you know the answer or you may simply clam up right from the start, not answer and not admit that you know or don't know. What you shouldn't do under any circumstances is knowingly undermine righteousness or rationalize as to what constitutes righteousness.
Michael Hayden and the US government at the so-called top blatantly lie rather frequently; but even more often, they deliberately work to undermine righteousness. They tell plenty of half-truths to deceive.
So, on to the huge stupidity of Michael Hayden's statement above.
It's all wrapped up in "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the circumstances. When we try a person for stealing a loaf of bread, even if he was hungry and broke and was refused help at every turn, we (the state in this case; not I) apply the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard. Even the slightest doubt that he is guilty should see him set free. One's doubt that casts a shadow may seem an unreasonably high standard under other circumstances where the person's guilt or innocence won't see him punished by the state either way. We rise to the higher standard because getting it wrong and punishing an innocent person is vastly worse than letting a guilty one go free.
That's only partly why Hayden is obviously stupid (being stupid on purpose; for evil reasons). The worse aspect is that he's being stupid about it where we aren't talking about one man going to jail for a bit or just being put on probation for stealing (where the standard is so high). We're talking about a situation where many hundreds have already lost their lives and where WWIII could be triggered if recklessness is given its head.
NATO and Russia are nuclear-weapons superpowers. Russia has exceptionally sophisticated missile and other technologies, some of which no doubt is secret and not known by the US/NATO. Therefore, this situation not only calls for a standard much higher than beyond a reasonable doubt but higher than what would be applied in putting a bread thief in jail, not that any injustice toward the innocent is ever acceptable.
Naturally, the US government, the Obama administration, and the rest who hold with Hayden (finding it acceptable to declare Russia and Putin guilty on such a matter where so much hangs in the balance) are equally as stupid if not more so.
Let's continue with the article.
It mentions the audio. What it doesn't tell you is that Russian experts have said the audio is spliced together and that it is from an event that happened before the downing of the airliner. As I wrote elsewhere, it would be an easy matter for truly independent (non-US intelligence experts; non-Zionists) in the US to corroborate or refute or at least cast doubt upon the Russians' expert opinions on the audio.
The article also cited anonymous sources. Well, given the gravity of the situation, that's not good enough. There's nothing in the article that the US government doesn't want out there. Therefore, show us your evidence beyond wild speculation and conjecture or, frankly, shut up, liars.
Don't forget James Clapper's whopping lie to the US Congress and American people. Also don't forget that Barack Obama didn't fire the liar.
They lie on purpose. It's a proven fact.
The US government claims it didn't know the pro-Russia, Ukrainian federalists had such missiles. Well, they still don't know it. They have simply attempted and failed miserably to paint a circumstantial picture that we are supposed to be dumb enough to just accept (because we trust the proven liars). Honestly, are we such the weak-minded American public?
Do we go to war with Russia or make financial and economic war on the Russians based upon so-called evidence that wouldn't even legitimately land a bread thief over night in the local police-station holding tank?
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)