MEK TERRORISTS IN IRAN UNDER CIA, BARACK OBAMA, MI6, GORDON BROWN, MOSSAD, AND BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
The MEK goes by several acronyms. It stands for Mojahedin-e-Khalq. They fought violently against the Shah's regime (American hard-to-handle puppet) and Islamic Revolution in Iran in the 1970's and 80's. They are violent Marxist-Muslims (even though publicly they claimed to have renounce violence and even as their group is split over Islam) and are led largely by females. It's a unique group. They were extremely discipline. The Shah's SAVAK and military worked to crush them in Iran. Then the Ayatollah Khomeini did the same. They fled and took cover under Saddam Hussein in Iraq. They aided Saddam in his war against Iran although they deny it. They've always wanted to get back into Iran and to overthrow the regime. Here's the connection with the current situation.
Mousavi and Ayatollah Khomeini's Secret, Mass Executions
Mousavi was the Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989. In 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the secret execution by slow hanging of thousands of prisoners many of whom were MEK members but others were petty offenders and mere leftists. Mousavi left government shortly after Khomeini died and one of Mousavi's rivals, Rafsanjani (an Ayatollah and the richest person in Iran who now backs Mousavi) was elected President. Mousavi was asked about the mass execution during the campaign this year but reportedly ducked the question else he wouldn't have been allowed to continue running for office.
Follow the Money
One of the reasons Mousavi has Western backing is his pledge to privatize. Oh how the oil industry in the West loves to hear that. It's money to their ears. He pushed many of the right Western-buttons during his campaign: women's rights, freedom of expression, private ownership of media (TV stations), more religious tolerance, and other things. His statements suggested he would greatly relax the moral code. He said he would ban the moral police. This means a loosening of sexual mores: dress code but also and probably without his ever having overtly stated it, homosexuality under the guise of privacy. Hollywood and such are major profit centers for loose mores.
Americanization means markets for goods and services. It really means opening up to globalization and the global plutocracy (mainly the banks) to sell and to devour.
God is often characterized in Hollywood as harsh and strict: too strict. Is God though the harsh hand of an Ayatollah Khomeini who secretly hanged thousands, many for simply not knuckling under to the most rigid sharia view or interpretation of the Qur'an, or is God the working conscience that needs no heavy hand from other human beings, as Jesus Christ said to have the law, as he defined and used the term, written on hearts? This is even an issue within circles claiming Christianity. Paul in Romans 13 for instance got the issue all muddled up. It has caused great harm.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:1-7 KJV)
"...beareth not the sword in vain...." Jesus said not to fear those who can take your fleshly life but rather the one who can kill your soul in Hell.
"...revenger...." Vengeance is God's. The rebellious usurp.
In Iran, the powers have been overthrown by each other. The same applies in the West and the U.S.
Hitler was the power for a time in Germany. Should he have been accorded the respect of Romans 13? Should a Christian have followed orders to murder? Did Jesus do the will of the Pharisaic High Priest Caiaphas? Did he do the will of Caesar who was over Caiaphas? He did not. The wills of Caesar and Caiaphas were not in sync with the will of God. In Paul's book, might makes right. In Jesus's book, right is might. Jesus didn't coerce. Caiaphas did. Jesus didn't resist violent, fleshly evil, but he refused not to speak truth and do truth. He resisted spiritual evil attempting to manifest as Jesus's flesh, which is a form of violence and a true, reconcilable paradox. Paul would have you shut up and stop upon the orders of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who used coercion and violence to attain his worldly position. Do you see the pattern of confusion? Can we all overcome it? We can and will as humanity.
Religious "Freedom" and Baha'i
Concerning religious freedom, most notably, the Baha'i faith (1863) has been severely denounced by the current Supreme Leader of the Guardian Council, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Bahaists are followers of Mirza Huseyn Ali, also known as Bahaullah. He, in turn, was a follower of Ali Mohammad, known as the Bab, founder of Babism. Bahaism is denounced in Islam because it is a direct contradiction of Mohammed's teachings that he, Mohammed, is the final word or final prophet before the Hidden Imam returns with Jesus in the End Times/Second Coming. Baha'i is a direct assault on Islam even as it credits Mohammed. Of course, Islam is a direct assault on Christianity even as Mohammed credited Jesus (albeit via a non-Gospel, twisted version of Jesus). Jesus, of course, is the end, because adhering to his New Commandment will bring in the New Heaven and New Earth conflated, perfect, and eternal — ready to deal with the last effort of confusion and never to be replaced or displaced but only to reach the end that is pure oneness with God Righteousness.
Mohammed and Mirza Huseyn Ali and others see themselves as more enlightened than their predecessors. Mohammed was not more enlightened than was Jesus. How anyone could conclude or accept otherwise is beyond me. It just flies in the face of all understanding. (Hence, the current problems surrounding the Islamic theocracy and the need for secret, mass executions on the part of the Islamic Revolutions founder, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, who was clearly wrong) If it's righteous, it doesn't need to be done such that it will never see the light of day else be denounced by the righteous. The righteous do denounce the executions and do so openly and as directly as possible.
Mirza Huseyn Ali taught a form of syncretism, which rejected Jesus's doctrine. It's subtle at best for those who don't delve into each to see the difference. It stands in stark contrast for those who do and can, are given to, grasp.
Refusing to Listen or Talk
Many in Islam simply don't want to hear any of this for fear of failing in their own minds. Before they hear, they have convinced themselves (have submitted to Mohammed) that listening is evil. Well, listening to some things is true insult. How to define "true insult" is the issue before the whole world, and refusing to dialogue on it with an eye and ear to getting at the root regardless of preconceived concepts given by anyone is wrong. I can say this as a follower of Jesus because Jesus withstands any such scrutiny.
I mention all of these things to shed some light on the complexity surrounding the current color-code revolution being attempted by Washington under Barack Obama. Ockham's Razor is wrong. Evolution is toward greater complexity — the understanding of it — even as equations and universal absolutes are discovered. The word, God, love, truth, peace, (in all Christian simplicity and complexity) is the absolute.
As a clarification, the Supreme Leader is not a totalitarian dictator in as much as he is chosen by the Assembly of Experts and can be deposed. He is not on the order of the Popes of old who became demigods for life and still are treated as such within a smaller circle. The Iranian Leader is a constitutional position. It is important to note that the Leader and not the President controls the military and the power to declare war. Ahmadinejad does not have the power or authority to launch any attacks. The way to view the Leader is that he has veto authority concerning everything. His conscience dictates up to the point that the Assembly of Experts will go along. They are the direct check on his power.
MEK Terrorism in Iran: CIA, MI6, Mossad, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Benjamin Netanyahu
Now, Iran has alleged that some of the street protesters captured have turned out to be MEK members (also called MKO). (See: "Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots," Press TV. June 21, 2009.) Understand here that historically, the MEK has been extremely violent. They fought pitched battles and undertook assassinations and bombings, etc. Iran says that some of the prisoners are talking and admitting that they "trained in Iraq's camp Ashraf" (U.S. military based recently turned over to Iraq) and took orders from Britain. So, that would be the CIA, MI6, Mossad, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Understand further that U.S. neocons have been backing the MEK stories about Iranian nuclear-weapons ambitions and have been calling for funding and backing new MEK covert and overt operations against the Islamic Revolution. Therefore, it is more than highly likely that the reports coming out of Iran concerning the MEK and CIA, etc., are mostly true.
U.S. State-Sponsored Terrorism: Impeachable Offense
Of course, this is all completely against International Laws of peace on the parts of the U.S., U.K., and Israel and their leaders: Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Benjamin Netanyahu. They are supporting terrorism and terrorists. This is state-sponsored terrorism. Each of the named nation-states is a rogue state. Each of the leaders has committed high crimes. Barack Obama, for one, has committed clearly impeachable offenses under the law of the United States. Under that same law, he is to be tried and removed from office.
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb No One!
So, we have Iran under a historically repressive regime that had been moderating ever so slightly facing the U.S., Britain, Israel, and the MEK and others all bent upon revenge and control but always mammon. There's an old saying: "Politics makes strange bedfellows." How true in the mundane. Regardless, the super-strict Muslim clerics are not as evil as bombing Iran. The situation does not call for military attacks on Iran. They call for level-headed dialogue. The same applies to all the nations of the world, including North Korea.
War Offends God Righteousness
War is not the right way to approach Iran. Worldly imperialism is just another form of the tyranny of evil (offense; displeasing).
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)