AMERICAN POLL AND TRUTH VERSUS THE CIA AND GENERAL AMERICAN POPULATION: COLLUDERS AGAINST IRAN

AMERICAN POLL AND TRUTH VERSUS THE CIA AND GENERAL AMERICAN POPULATION: COLLUDERS AGAINST IRAN

ABC News censored me, but I won't censor them. They are unabashedly the tool of the CIA. Watch the video for yourself. You may need to watch it several times and pause every once in a while to ponder and to let it sink in as to what is happening in and to Iran. It's all dishonest. It's not the way. It's antichrist. There is no good intention in it at the top of the U.S. and within the inner circle of the plutocrats. It's completely unnecessary. There are ways of getting to the real solutions to the problems of humanity. Those real ways are being avoided on purpose. It's clear and plain to see that immorality is ruling the hearts of the vast, vast majority of Americans and, frankly, human beings in general.

We can change though. It is not human nature to be evil. Evil is learned, and the bad habitual ways of thinking and acting can be changed to righteousness. There is a learning curve, but it is doable. Jesus showed that. He did it, which proved it.

Here's a little more to think about.

The poll I cited by Terror Free Tomorrow and to which I linked (video on YouTube):


addresses one of the key so-called indicators of election fraud in Iran. The CIA propagandists spread the idea that Ahmadinejad cheated because he won in Mousavi's home region of the Azeris (ethnic group). However, the polling by mainstream independent American pollsters showed Ahmadinejad with a 2 to 1 lead in that area. The reason for this is because the common people identify with Ahmadinejad's policies more then Mousavi's. Mousavi is an elitist. Ahmadinejad is more the populist. He's more working-class oriented.

Also, the reporting is about "peaceful" protestors or demonstrators. The photos coming out of Iran are mostly by Mousavi voters. They don't emphasize the burning of buildings and buses, etc., by Mousavi's demonstrators. They only show the reaction of the police and paramilitary people siding with the police.

Lastly, people have been killing, but it is a fact that the CIA and U.S. military clandestine operatives (special ops) are in Iran. They could very easily kill some people while being dressed up as Iranian police or what have you. There are Iranian CIA agents who could also be responsible. Reports that all the killing was by police or militia must be taken with a block of salt.

Donate


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.
    • Follow the money!

      June 16, 2009

      Iranian History Doesn't Move in a Straight Line

      Guarding the Revolution

      By AFSHIN RATTANSI

      CounterPunch

      Thanks to Alex Eales over on Facebook

    • Alex was unfriended on Facebook for posting dissenting views on Juan Coles Facebook profile. I read her notes about it and left the following comment for her:

      Hi Alex, I don't get the sense that you are a troll-type (still a vague concept for me). I believe that sexual issues are largely at work concerning this "green" revolution. Juan Cole is very warmly received on Democracy Now with its relatively very heavy focus on homosexual rights. I don't want to leave the impression that I'm for coercion (especially violent) against people for their behavioral choices. I do think Juan is a Democracy-Now-type liberal on the same-sex issue. That agenda is higher priority with many than are other "rights." Many Populist issues are being made to take a backseat on account of this. They want to break the theocracy more than worrying about and working first to lift up the poor and working class.

      • I want to add something here about Juan Cole. Juan is concerned about homosexuals in Iran and elsewhere. This March 19, 2006, post on his blog, "Sistani on Homosexuality," will shed light on his weaving through the issues in terms of Islam, etc. The post concerns the Iraqi Shia Ayatollah Sistani but the discussion works concerning Islam and homosexuality in general.

        My post, "MEK TERRORISTS IN IRAN UNDER CIA, BARACK OBAMA, MI6, GORDON BROWN, MOSSAD, AND BENJAMIN NETANYAHU," also touches on the Baha'i faith, of which Juan Cole is a member. I strongly suggest one keeps that in mind when evaluating Cole's positions vis-a-vis Iran and the failing but on-going color-coded revolution/coup.

    • Alex replied on Facebook: "Sorry? Are you serious?"

      My reply:

      Now you know why I get censored. Of course, there are many people on both sides of what is happening in Iran for whom sexual aspects are the last thing on their minds. It is though a central issue with some core haters of those who are constantly termed "hardliners" and "Islamists" in the Western mainstream media. There are people who will sacrifice peace for the "right" to do what they want regarding homosexuality, including to join and to serve as openly homosexual in the U.S. military for instance. Anyway, it's one aspect. Money, power, etc., it's all out-of-control lust of one form or another. I want harmlessness in all areas of life. I'm a total pacifist. My intention is not to offend. Peace

    • Alex replied:

      But you are stigmatising people for their sexual orientation? How could that be peaceful? I dunno why I accepted your friend request Tom? Actually, I do know, I am a very accepting person; but when it comes to religious codswallop, I get very, very impatient, very, very quickly... I try to respect people's views, but when their views are so divorced from reality, I'm not afraid to speak my mind.

      I responded:

      People have different places where they draw lines. There are people who engage in sexual activities you probably denounce. Remember, I'm opposed to coercing even those people. I'm for people freely choosing harmlessness. I'm for open and direct dialogue concerning what constitutes these things/terms. Others seek to shut down getting at the root to convince me or to be convinced. My point though in adding the comments is that there are competing interests and that groups are aligning against Iran's current government in ways that didn't happen regarding Iraq but have happened concerning Afghanistan (Taliban), but to a lesser degree since Afghanistan was never as Iran was under the Shah. Anyway, my interest is not in antagonizing. I'm just in agreement with you about the CIA and will leave it at that with you.