DICK CHENEY'S ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE BEHIND ASSASSINATION HIT SQUADS
Look, most people know that there is evil lurking; but they just don't know how dark, dark really gets. The dark side isn't just less light. It's pitch black. I'm speaking in terms of right versus wrong here. Right is the light, and wrong is the absence thereof.
Genocide for the sake of those who perpetrate it is something they want to see as good, right, the light, etc. Well, those who are killed may actually be worse. However, there is a place where the genocide is perpetrated not with that lesser-of-evils mentality in mind but for more evil reasons. Lies are told to mask it.
Okay, then there is the stopping short of genocide. There is decimation, where every tenth is killed to put the fear into them to get them to submit. The ancients practiced both genocide and decimation.
Then there is the Nazi style that was similar to decimation but was one hundred to one. For every Nazi killed by the partisans, one hundred townsfolk men would be put before the mass firing squad.
Today, we have the Zionists (most but not all) who very nearly always exceed decimation but most often hover around the 100:1 ratio.
Cheney is a Zionist of convenience. He's really for Cheney. Dick Cheney is perfectly willing to kill 99 in cold blood perhaps to get just 1 person who is just 1% likely to be a serious threat. He's always been willing to go through hundreds of thousands and many millions of innocents if necessary to perhaps decapitate just a part here or there. It's his one-percent solution or one-percent doctrine that Ron Suskind wrote about in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11."
Don't believe it that they never got it operational. Also, Rumsfeld's obsession with technology is what Bob Woodward was writing about when he said that the U.S. was suddenly winning the war on terrorism by secret means. He was referring to the predator drones, spy satellites, and locals bribed to finger "terrorists" by pointing to them via handheld hi-tech means and other such sci-fi-cum-weaponry. But that method cannot be used just anywhere, and targets are still located in various non-combat zones, so to speak. Although, to Cheney, the whole world is a war zone if there's a wanted or suspected or named target no matter how innocent he might be.
So when you think about CIA death squads or hit teams floating about assassinating people, you have to understand that this is what was underlying it. It wasn't that anyone in Congress or elsewhere is shocked by the CIA assassinating "known" al Qaeda, etc. It's that the CIA and DIA with the Special Forces under Donald Rumsfeld, that didn't have to report back to the Congress, were going about killing where the evidence was just anyone captured or paid throwing out names. It was dragnet assassinations much the way they did their dragnet surveillance.
They aren't going to want to let this get out unless they find they can't contain it. Then they will have no choice but to throw Cheney to the lions. They will have to treat him the way their fathers and grandfathers treated the Nazi war criminals. They won't have a choice.
They absolutely should not hang Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or George W. Bush or others. They should not abuse them. They should though treat him as the total heathen that he is. If you don't know what that means, then study Jesus.
Now, there will be those who doubt this. They say, how can you possibly know this. Watch.
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)