REGARDING IRAN, DON'T BE CIA PAWNS
The U.S. now controls Iraqi oil. (See: "Oil rush: Scramble for Iraq's wealth," The Independent. June 21, 2009.) It is the main reason the U.S. attacked, invaded, and has occupied Iraq. It was not about WMD's or 9/11 except in very peripheral and indirect senses.
The U.S. occupied Afghanistan by conflating the Taliban with al Qaeda, which never took responsibility for 9/11. Osama bin Laden isn't even on the FBI wanted list for 9/11 because the FBI has admitted there is no evidence. (See: "IF THE 2004 OSAMA BIN LADEN VIDEO IS REAL, WHY IS HE STILL NOT ON THE FBI 10 MOST WANTED LIST FOR 9/11?") Not only that but the Taliban were willing to negotiate with the U.S. concerning al Qaeda and giving up Osama bin Laden. It was the George W. Bush administration that refused to talk because Bush and Cheney, et al., had their plan for expanded Empire. The U.S. is now busy further conflating the Pashtun tribe with the Taliban-cum-al Qaeda, which Pashtuns are standing in the way of total American imperial takeover. The Pakistanis have been hired (billions and billions in aid/bribes while Americans are losing homes and jobs left and right) to fight a proxy war against the Pashtuns for the sake of the American Empire.
The 9/11 Commission was completely controlled and did not report the whole truth. It was deliberately prevented from thoroughly addressing critical questions of U.S. governmental culpability. It was a whitewash: cover-up. There were false-flag aspects. Just how deep and wide those aspects go was prevented from coming out.
Iraq and Afghanistan sit on either side of Iran, and Iran has large oil reserves. Iran's oil was the reason the U.S. overthrew Iran's duly elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 in Operation AJAX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax). Operation AJAX was pushed by the Dulles brothers. John Foster Dulles was the Secretary of State at the time. His brother, Allen Dulles, and he were behind recruiting Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen after WWII. They also were instrumental in using the Gestapo and many unrepentant Nazis in the U.S. and elsewhere to further the CIA. (See: Operation Paperclip — don't be fooled by the sanitation of the information on the Internet by CIA agents and freelance contractors).
The region around Iran is right there next to China and India, two budding, potential superpowers. Russia is just a stone's throw away and has huge oil and gas reserves and other resources. The plan is to deny other would-be, supposed, global, imperial rivals from consolidating in any way with Middle Eastern oil as a shared resource. Dick Cheney, who literally called Americans to turn to the dark side (he actually used the term "dark side"), called Middle Eastern oil "the prize." It translates into money, power, and control. It's raw greed and completely ignores the issue of CO2 buildup and human-induced, radical, and unmanageable climate-change.
The political Zionists, those who wrongfully conflate their brand of Zionism (Likud) with Jewishness, cooperate with and use the American Empire for their own purposes: the long-term design of creating "Greater Israel," a military-economic empire running from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq.
The CIA, Pentagon, MI6 (British), and Mossad (Israeli) have been heavily involved in destabilization efforts concerning Iran, which efforts include murdering the innocent as so much collateral damage.
They have had no problem with using predator drones to murder babies. During the anti-war days concerning the Vietnam War, we rightly called it "baby killing." You shall know them by their fruits. There's no difference. The only problem the CIA (and the others) and their handlers/owners, those superrich (ultra-greedy; unbridled lust) in mammon, have is with keeping American public opinion from shifting and becoming brave enough to roundly denounce the murder of innocents and all the other evil deeds of the American Empire and its allies and tributaries.
If you are going to speak to issues of human rights in Iran, be sure to be consistent. Is it a human right to be free of being America's collateral damage? Is it a human right to be free of being the target of American covetousness and takeovers of extractable resources such as oil? It ought to be. That should apply everywhere. Look at what the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Peru wrought against the indigenous Peruvians. They are struggling against the tentacles of the imperial and monopolistic octopus that bashes their heads until they are dead. Those Amazonian Indians are prepared to fight, kill (which I'm against), and die for their worldly survival; but they have the lesser evil in the whole affair. I say it openly and will not retract it on pain of death.
I don't hold with Islamic theocracy, but do you know what you are doing? Make sure you aren't being pawns of the CIA. Spell it all out. This is all about Empire and light versus darkness.
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)