CIA'S ROLE IN IRAN CONTINUED

CIA'S ROLE IN IRAN CONTINUED

"Iranian envoy: CIA involved in Neda's shooting?" CNN. June 25, 2009.

CIA spokesman George Little said, "Any suggestion that the CIA was responsible for the death of this young woman [Neda] is wrong, absurd and offensive."

That's coming from the organization that murders babies via predator drones. Not only that, but how does he know? George Little doesn't know everything the CIA's left hand is doing. That's how they set it up. In addition, CIA spokesmen are the most practiced of the practiced when it comes to boldfaced lying. They are chosen specifically for that. A CIA spokesperson can be a brainwashed individual. People can be made to repeat total lies without hesitating. The CIA conducted in-depth scientific research into this and it was clearly shown to be the case. Just look into Donald Ewen Cameron, Operation Monarch, CIA Mind Control, depatterning, and psychic driving. The science and techniques have only been enhanced since the information first came on the public scene. Also, lying for the Empire is considered a "white lie," a "noble lie," or a "pious lie" by many "patriots." Think about whether you will believe people who say that waterboarding isn't torture. Think about whether you will believe people actually waterboard people and cover it up or try to anyway.

These are the same people who did the Iran-Contra deals. These are the same people who trained the death squads in El Salvador and elsewhere. These are the same people who infiltrated Communist groups in Italy and Greece and around Europe and encouraged and funded terrorist bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations just to keep the conflict going, just to keep the people afraid and in favor of overt U.S. intervention and "protection": a huge racket. These are the spies for the global racketeers. Just look into Operation Gladio. Throughout the time of the operations, the CIA constantly denied involvement. In other words, it constantly lied. Would they shoot or order or facilitate the shooting of some Iranian women in a protest on the streets of Tehran? Of course, they are quite capable of it.

For you to fall for the statement that "Any suggestion that the CIA was responsible for the death of this young woman is wrong, absurd, and offensive" is the height of gullible and suggestible. Did the CIA do it? Was the U.S. government behind it? The point is that it can't be ruled out at this point. CIA atrocities are legendary.

The linked article is worth reading. It shows that the Iranians have been reading the blogs and alternative news sites where the other side of the story is told in a way that the American people can comprehend. This is having a huge and positive impact.

This is not to say that the Islamic Revolution is right. It is not. Even now, the clerics are talking about using the death penalty against violent and destructive protesters. We don't hold with violent and destructive anarchism, but neither do we hold with the death penalty.

When you read the article, bear in mind that it has been written by the West. Bear in mind that it is focused on possibilities concerning the CIA. What it doesn't talk about is MI6 or the Mossad. MI6 is British. Mossad is Israeli. There are also freelancers who are independent contractors hired by these organizations to do the dirty work. Therefore, the CIA can say that it wasn't in Iran when its hirelings were. Of course, many of these "independent contractors" work exclusively for the CIA and have no option but to carry out the CIA's orders or else. Are they really "independent" in that case?

Regardless, the CIA was involved in instigating, planning, supporting, funding, coordinating, etc., the recent violent and destructive demonstrations in Iran. The clerics have foolishly fallen into the trap (taken the bait) by using excessive and undisciplined violence against protesters in general.

It's bad enough to target those who are actually being violent and destructive. It's even worse to have a blanket attack by militia on even peaceful demonstrators.

NEOCONS FALSE TEARS FOR NEDA AGHA-SOLTAN

Where are the neocon calls against the illegal occupation and blockade against the West Bank and Gaza? The hypocrites cry over Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman shot to death in Iran during the street protests, but they have nothing but praise for Israel's Operation Cast Lead against the women and children of Gaza. To Hell with that neoconservatism.

9/11 TRUTH

Where is the neocon call for getting to the bottom of 9/11? Who paid for it? Who ordered it? It wasn't Osama bin Laden. All attempts at getting the real truth out to the people of the whole world have been blocked by the U.S. government. Is that the people's government? It is not! It has been purchased by the elitists who obtained their wealth via evil means.

BARACK OBAMA BLOCKING TRUTH TO SHIELD UNREPENTANT

Barack Obama's administration is blocking every effort on all fronts for the people to find out what happened with all the actions of the George W. Bush administration. Of course, that was what Obama promised the Bilderberg Group and the other such entities he would do. That's why they let him become President rather than ripping him to pieces in their media or even simply not covering him, as they did with Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis was anti-war afterall. He's still hardly getting coverage. He's now for abolishing the Federal Reserve and for giving the money printing press back to the people's representatives where the Constitution places the authority and responsibility. He's for ending the interest on the issuance of new money. (See: "The Way Out," by Richard Distelhorst. OEN. May 28, 2009.) That would eliminate the National Debt if it were paid off with the new notes, and it would reduce income taxes enough immediately to end the current depression. Why is he not being lionized in the mainstream corporate media in the U.S.? That's easy. The mainstream corporate media in the U.S. is owned and operated by the same people who own the Federal Reserve. What's new?

Jesus stood firmly against the system of mammon. So too do I.

OBAMA'S FACILITATION OF FUTURE EVIL

Obama is using the excuse of not looking backward so he can avoid exposing the truth. Obama's approach makes light of evil deeds. It facilitates the continuation of evil. He's currently engaged in all sorts of activities around the world, which activities are absolutely against international and domestic law. No war excuses it. No Unified Executive theory excuses it. No state secrets theory excuses it. No appeals to national security excuses it.

The spying, the kidnappings, the "harsh interrogation techniques," the extraordinary renditions, the bombings, the assassinations, the bribes, the black market weapons deals, and more, all continue. If you believe Barack Obama when he tells you that his administration had no CIA agents in Iran stirring up trouble, you are so naive and gullible.

BARACK OBAMA PLAY ACTOR

First and foremost, Barack Obama is a play actor. He is a highly practiced liar. He has worked to perfect the dark art of couching all his actions so that he may later say that he has not been inconsistent. He will say that he did not mislead the voters. Well, he did make clear that he was morphing outwardly into a neocon. The children couldn't see it. Was it deception? Of course it was. They were manipulated with shallow sound bites of "change" and "yes we can." They assumed that change would be the opposite of George W. Bush. They were not trained to look at the details. They were trained to look at the artificial image.

YOUTH MOVEMENT DECEIVED

So, where is the Youth Movement now? What are they doing? What are they going to do? Are they happy with people who order predator drone operators to murder babies running the world?

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.