The so-called terrorists are and also are not the enemy of the Empire. Without them, there would be no Empire. The Empire expands based upon the perception of violent and other threats by the general population against them. Of course, the mask is coming off those of the general population who know full well what is really going on but simply wink at the leaders they help to select in the furtherance of expanding the worldly empire so they, the general public, may gain their share of the spoils of war.

What is Jundallah and what does it have to do with Iran's current problems? Jundallah is a Sunni groups in Sistan-Baluchistan Province of Iran and based in Balochistan in Pakistan just across the border from Iran. Jundallah gets support from the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, aka MKO) and from the U.S., which also helps sponsor the MEK albeit through secret, shadow government, channels. The U.S. neocon false-Zionists use the MEK against Iran.

Fomenting sectarian strife is an old and still widely used tactic of the worldly imperialist, the U.S. along with the U.K. and Israel in the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire/Axis of Evil. The U.K. had two of its special ops troops caught red handed dressed up as Arabs in Iraq riding around with materials for planting bombs. (See: "Compilation: British Forces Conduct False-Flag Bombings in Iraq." Physics911. October 4, 2005.) That was a little before the so-called terrorist, insurgent bombing of the Golden Domed Shia mosque in Iraq. That set off huge sectarian strife. Divide and conquer. Divide and rule. All's fair in love and war. Hardly.

The Sunni Jundallah claimed responsibility for the Shia Zahedan mosque bombing that occurred three weeks before the recent Iranian presidential elections. (See: "Iran executes three men for mosque bombing." BBC. May 30, 2009.)

These people are funded from all sorts of "untraceable" sources including the poppy, opium, heroin trade that the U.S. has just announced it will not seek to block in Afghanistan. I did a recent post on it: "US SPECIAL ENVOY RICHARD HOLBROOKE ANNOUNCES U.S. ENDING POPPY ERADICATION IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT A JOKE."

In other words, European addicts pay for terrorism supported by the U.S.

Now, why would the U.S. and Israel be so up in arms against Iran's clerics when Saudi Arabia is much more dictatorial? Think about it. Supposedly, the 9/11 skyjackers came from Saudi Arabia and were Sunnis of the Wahhabi persuasion. The Saudi dynasty is kidding itself if it thinks it isn't within the long-term sights of Israel and the U.S. et al. The plan is for Jordan and Egypt to be treated to exactly the same because they have resources and a market to come to own.

The obstacles were removed in Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto were obstacles to what is currently going on in Pakistan: full-blown military attack on the tribal area abutting Afghanistan. Benazir Bhutto had hinted that she might be willing to go along to some degree, but she was not as willing a pawn as her husband. Zardari, the current president and former spouse of Benazir Bhutto who was assassinated under highly suspicious circumstances, was granted amnesty concerning all corruption charges that were outstanding against him. The charges were severe and not without foundation. He's been bought.


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.
    • 2005 elections: Ahmadinejad 61.7 %; Rafsanjani 35.9%