Why am I writing so much on this issue? It's as important as the lead-up to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bringing down Iran is the make-it-or-break-it issue for the evil Likud. Yes, the Ayatollah Khomeini was ruthless and brutal, but that doesn't mean you should be in bed with Benjamin Netanyahu.

Concerning the Chatham House analysis mentioned in my previous post, I want to add that the census of 2005 might have been off. The movement of people might account for some differences. Many people not registered (if that's the right term or method in Iran) but still legal residents in the local voting district might have been allowed to vote. These are just quick thoughts. I would ask questions based upon them and be prepared for answers either way. Asking the right questions is required. Asking questions doesn't necessarily mean one holds one way or the other. The object is to eliminate possibilities.

Also, a BBC and ABC News poll conducted by the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation found that 16 per cent of Azeri Iranians would vote for Mousavi while 31 per cent would be voting for Mr. Ahmadinejad. That deflates Mr. Juan Cole's position at somewhat until further notice. Juan holds that this is just highly unlikely. Why though would the respected Center for Public Opinion produce a bad polling result? They have a solid track record according to Esam AL-Amin. (See: "A Hard Look at the Numbers: What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election?" by Esam AL-Amin. Counter Punch. June 22, 2009.)

It must be said though that this doesn't address the 3 million some excess votes. I sure want the particulars. They dribble out the info. Get beyond sound bites. Details, specifics, right questions with answers, let's have them.

Esam does though mention the Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO; aka, MEK) and its "campaign of assassination of dozens of its [Iran's] lawmakers, an elected president and a prime minister." Those are the people the CIA, MI6, and Mossad have been training, aiding, and funding and who have now been reportedly caught in Iran and have confessed that association and training, etc. (See my post, "MEK TERRORISTS IN IRAN UNDER CIA, BARACK OBAMA, MI6, GORDON BROWN, MOSSAD, AND BENJAMIN NETANYAHU")

The news media is full of footage of violence in Iran, but what about showing results of the predator drones? Where are the dead babies murdered by the baby killers? Why aren't the directly known fruits of the Empire shown?

George W. Bush made sure that the National Endowment for Democracy (what a misnomer) received at least $400 million to get things churned up in Iran. The National Endowment for Democracy is nothing but a front for overthrowing various governments including democracies, such as in Venezuela, which is more democratic than is the U.S.

Barack Obama said today (June 23, 2009), "I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs." I've seen quite of few articles and comments around meant to suggest that the authors believe this blatant lie. Is Barack Obama saying that he ordered all covert ops to stop? If you believe that this guy who told the voting public he wouldn't hire lobbyists to work in his White House, you're shilling for Obama and his handlers and bosses. Of course, he did sell himself on feel-good-about-American prospects for vague changes. He did even sprinkle in some details, but the eyes of much of the youth these days gloss over when it comes to details. Just give them the feel-good stuff like "Hope" and "Change" and "Yes We Can" and killing babies with predator drones and looking the other way on the endless and huge national and international illegalities of his predecessors. Don't forget mountaintop removal. He's okayed another 42 of those. Forget about getting any of the trillions of taxpayer dollars back from the likes of Henry Paulson and his Goldman Sachs too. It's all hush-hush. After all, if the people were to find out what's right in front of their noses they might wake up. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I just finished reading an article by your favorite highly sarcastic atheist (hard to read but worth it), Greg Palast, "The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold: JOE STIGLITZ: TODAY'S WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS," by Greg Palast.

What we need is a change in system. Capitalism stinks. Coercive socialism stinks too. Greed and selfishness are driving the problems of the world. In the meantime, the American people are without a clue as to how the economy works or doesn't. There's been an uptick in the number who are concerned about deficit spending. It was a few years into the Great Depression that the same chorus started singing. The Roosevelt administration reversed course and started reining in the spending. Things became worse. The recovery slowed. It wasn't until they re-reversed that things started improving again. Why do the people want to repeat the same mistake, and why don't the Obama people know how to teach economic history to the people? Yes, the taxpayers are footing the printing of money. The error has been where the money has gone. It went to the crooks who created the crash, as usual. That's in the alternative history books too (the ones with the truth in them, not the ones used in the college courses). Just dump the Fed and interest on the nation's currency and watch things improve dramatically. Of course, you'll have to keep a watchful eye on the banksters. They'll conspire to sabotage.

Why bring economics into this Iran issue? Follow the money. It's exactly right. That's why they make it untraceable. Just look at the Fed. Even the U.S. Congress can't look inside (yet).

Now, the Mousavi movement is over already. He's been used and spent this time around. He didn't have much political capital. The CIA is well into its next phase. There will be more serious events than we've seen. The neocons want Iran one way or the other. The mammon worshippers want it too. There is overlap. So, since Mousavi is spent and his followers are now disillusioned, who will the CIA put up who stands completely against the Islamic Revolution? Mousavi doesn't. Mousavi is the loyal opposition.


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.