Title: "Local Cipro tabs: daily dose."
Who was he in terms of his religious and political beliefs? The anthrax letters were designed to make it appear that Muslims were behind the attacks. What's in Bruce Ivins's background to either support or refute that he would want to conduct a false-flag operation all by himself or at all? Our understanding is that Bruce was a registered Democrat.
What was his motive? What did he stand to gain?
If nothing in his background can suggest that he would want to cause people to believe that Muslims were behind the attacks, then he didn't do it. It would mean he's being framed. It would mean that the FBI is framing him to divert attention and investigation and research away from the real perpetrators of the false-flag operation.
However, in a post entitled, "FBI attempts to blame 911 Anthrax blackmail on dead zionist," they claim a copy of a letter to the editor of the Fredrick NewsPost, dated August 24, 2006, from Ivins stating the following:
End of 'dialogue'
Originally published August 24, 2006
Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."
By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."
— BRUCE IVINS, Frederick
If that is from Ivins (has it been authenticated?), then Ivins background or openly stated beliefs would not rule him out as the possible perpetrator. Of course, we don't have the whole thing in the context of all his writings. That's the only way to truly evaluate such things.
Now, if he was a militant Christian-Zionist (is there any other kind?), then it would be very suspicious as to why the FBI would stop the search at Ivins. They would check his entire circle. Of course, we've seen what has happened when even hundreds of Israeli spies have been found out in America: Nothing. They just go back to Israel without even a slap on the wrist. They have been treated as if their loyalties are as much or more for America than they are for Zionism. That's not to say that the RLCC is for punishing Israeli spies. We aren't for punishing anyone. It's not the Golden Rule. We point it out though just so people won't be duped.
Also, reports say that he passed two lie-detector tests about his loyalty. The second test was given after he became a suspect. Such tests aren't 100% accurate, but with Bruce's apparent high anxiety and depression, it's unlikely he would have been able to create the emotional flat state necessary to fool the equipment. He would have had to have been an amazing actor (highly trained by Mossad?; took himself out as spies will do?). Also, such a person would not find it necessary to commit suicide. He would have been sure of himself.
His handwriting passed the test of handwriting expert analysis concerning who penned the anthrax letters.
Furthermore, the new forensic tests the FBI used to trace the strain to Ivins is questioned by experts in the field. In addition, many people besides Ivins had access to the exact strain.
They didn't revoke his security clearance the whole time. They didn't even begin a Grand Jury.
Now we have the resurfacing of the story about Cyc, a computer program for the DoD by Cycorp, that supposedly predicted the anthrax attack six months before it happened. See my post, "ANTHRAX ATTACK FALSE-FLAG IN ANY CASE." In the original story, the article makes light of the program. That's a great psy-ops seed to plant isn't it.
Now we have the Alex Jones site, infowars.com, reminding us that "it was Hauer that reportedly advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax, on the very day of 9/11 and one week before the first anthrax letter was received."
WTC 7 Emergency Head Was Building Collapse Specialist
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Jerome Hauer was Rudy Giuliani's chief emergency manager. Hauer was located in WTC 7. The infowars post speaks about how every detail of Hauer's instant theory about who was responsible for 9/11 has remained the official conspiracy theory. It only raises suspicions, but without a thorough, independent (with Truthers also directly involved and who cannot be vetoed, just as no Supreme Court justice can be vetoed from writing a dissenting opinion), proper criminal investigation, the people will never know.
Do you trust people who have the mentality to conduct false-flag operations? I don't. The neocons have the mentality. It's traceable directly to them. It isn't traceable to me. They have the terrorist mentality. I don't. I hate terrorism. They only hate it when their enemies use it; otherwise, they loved Shock and Awe that was exactly a terrorist action — no doubt about it. It was pure Winston Churchill — put the fear into them. Make them feel helpless. Make them think that resistance is futile.
Let's not forget that people within the FBI who covered up all sorts of things about 9/11 were promoted. That's all you need to know really to know that they are not telling all about Bruce Ivins.
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)