I want to be succinct here. "Brevity is the soul of wit." (Well, that depends.)
Okay, first, I've turned the applicable posts into a "series" for readers' convenience.
Background: A 5 min. 19 sec. video dealing with 9/11 was posted on a number of sites: "."
That video dealt with old news, but it made promises. I had seen the original story years ago. At the time, it was worth looking into to see if there was anything there that would compel fence-sitting or doubting people to voice their support for a real investigation into 9/11 rather than all the truly pathetic so-called investigations that were done at the federal level. After reviewing all the available info at the time, I concluded that while the story raised many questions, it didn't have enough to wave at the powers that be as a smoking gun, given their concerted efforts to ignore even more compelling leads.
Now, the video above more than hints that there was new information that would be forth coming. Jonathan Elinoff said that he has new, never-seen-before (on the general Internet I assume he meant) documents that he would be discussing the coming Saturday (yesterday, as of the date of this post) on "Truth Jihad Radio," hosted by Kevin Barrett, 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm CST.
The 5-min. video above says that what Jonathan would be revealing would be "huge." He didn't say he would reveal all of it on the hour-long show, but he did lead listeners to believe that he would be revealing some new info not contained in the 5-min. video or in his "Core of Corruption" documentary.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Jon said on Saturday, October 10, 2009, in the 5-min. video that within 48 hours, there would be photos, etc., uploaded on http://coreofcorruption.com/. Well, more than a week later, is still the most recent info on the subject and it does not contain anything new. What's going on? Who's making whom look bad or trying to? Did he come down with the flu or something?
Why did I bother with this 5-min. video? Jonathan had already released a documentary, "" "Core of Corruption: In the Shadows" is a solid effort.
Now, Jonathan asks people to be patient, which is fine; but he also said he'd be supplying new/more info on the Saturday, October 17, 2009, "Truth Jihad Radio" show that just wasn't supplied. As I listened to the whole thing, I kept waiting for the revelation. It didn't happen. I listened, and didn't let the secular-humanist, atheistic John Lennon songs put me off. I didn't let the loud advertisements put me off. I tolerated the "style," which is grating to me, in hopes that it wasn't Satan posing as the Holy Spirit initially that gave me encouragement that something would blow the lid off the lying cover-up artists running the nation. Well, Satan certainly was yelling even while the Holy Spirit has bigger, eternal lessons to teach here.
The Mossad's motto is, "By way of deception, shalt thou make war." So, what deception has occurred in this whole train of events since Thursday for me and before for Jonathan Elinoff? Will anyone else smell the rats?
After one listens to Jon's discussion with Kevin on American Freedom Radio
10/17/2009 Saturday - 1st Hour: With Webster Tarpley. 2nd Hour: With Jonathan Elinoff (not yet archived as of the time of this writing)
then one may be, as I am, left thinking that there are some subjects covered in "Core of Corruption" that are handled too subtly by Jonathan or that there are some "style" issues that might better be addressed up front in coming videos, etc.
Where though does style become a cover (even subconsciously) for mistakenly following leads and rather than being as the criminal investigator who just concludes it isn't ready for a primetime build-up, one minces one's thoughts and dances with words so as to not come off embarrassed? The reasons I say that is because "Core of Corruption" is worth watching, but frankly, the nearly hour-long discussion on Kevin's show did not live up to the billing, even though it did a very worthy/admirable job in revealing how and why Jonathan is far from an anti-Semite (read here anti-Jew). What the discussion did not do is reveal anything new about the "art students" in the Twin Tower at the 90th or 91st floor, which "new" info was promised in the 5 min. come-on video. The discussion did remind listeners about how there were people who were associated with the group and who were investigated and determined to have been Mossad. That wasn't new though. Perhaps I missed something. I don't think so though. With some minor exceptions on the point of the "art students" in the WTC, I was left with what I had before I saw the 5-min. video.
I'm glad for having seen "Core of Corruption," with it's emphasis upon all the unexplained explosions (unexplained so far by other than pre-placed explosives to some degree) and a few revelations about the "art students," or was it the "movers" (I think perhaps the latter), who were set up in advance to capture on video the first plane hitting the Tower.
To hear Jonathan talk though, it doesn't appear that he has anything really newsworthy about the particular crew that was in the WTC. It is either that or he's not aware that stringing people along is not a good way to generate a following. Saying that you'll reveal things (break a story) on a show and then only say on the show that you will be revealing those things in the next few days is not a good practice. It comes off as the stuff of dead ends. Why wasn't the info given that was promised? There was no explanation given for why it wasn't delivered. The subject as to why the promised material wasn't delivered wasn't even raised. That whole aspect is not good in any case. It has definitely been mishandled or poorly handled if at all. Who has set this up? Who has been set up?
That said, what was missing from the radio show was a focusing in on, and a clear statement that, the fact that, that crew was in the WTC was a huge security breach in a facility that had been attacked by FBI-supplied "terrorists." It was implied in the discussion but in such a way that I see Kevin and Jonathan as being thrown off by the lack of new info and by their efforts to anticipate and to pre-deflect negative criticism that may be forthcoming, if some of it hasn't shown up already on the YouTube comment section for the 5-min. video, which comment section was already loaded with negative criticism before the hour show on October 17, 2009. The focus of that show was not on those particular "art students" in the WTC, while the come-on 5-min. video clearly suggests that, that would be the main subject or focus with new info pouring out.
The fact that security at that facility was supposed to be extremely high on account of the prior deadly attacks and that those attacks were conducted using FBI-supplied real explosive material was not covered. That's though why the "art students" in the WTC was a story in the first place after 9/11 and even before. If they could do it for a stunt (which it hasn't been proven that they weren't up to more than that), who else could have done what?
So, I am both disappointed and encouraged at the same time concerning different directions this whole thing has taken over the last several days since Thursday, October 15, 2009.
The "huge" that Jonathan promised wasn't forthcoming. That's a fact that Jonathan is just going to have to deal with. I was surprised that someone who could write and produce "Core of Corruption" didn't see this coming, but after listening to Jon's imploring us to be patient and to understand his style, I see that it's a hedge after the fact. Even if he were suddenly to produce all sorts of new and revealing documents (revealing huge possible complicity by the "art students" in the WTC), it would still not undo the lack in the hour show with Kevin that did not live up to the promise even slightly. It simply avoided it completely, filling the hour with a discussion on other more than indirect subject matter.
So, I went to the show, after having encouraged others to also attend based upon the prior work "Core of Corruption" and the feeling that the author wouldn't claim to be about to reveal vindicating material and then not do that, and am left to say to those who attended and who are disappointed, as am I, that I'm sorry I didn't see it coming. Although, as we all know, we always live with memories of having been let down.
Crying wolf is not a good thing. Echoing someone else's crying wolf and doing so based upon trust in that persons basic honesty is also an issue. This harms. Those who stand back in doubt about the veracity of the calls for help are aided by false alarms.
Satan is a trouble maker. Our path to perfection is strewn with learning experiences. The naysayers are not though vindicated.
I did learn in the hour show that Jonathan has fallen away from Christ. Kevin is a Muslim. Whom can one trust? Even Jesus loved the rich man before that rich one rejected the call. Of course the term "loved" there is semantically understood. That rich one was too attached to his material possessions and "comfortable" way of life to inherit the greater love. "Live and learn" is not a bad motto.
Was I taken in? Was Jesus taken in by first impressions? If Jesus had known in advance that the rich man would say no and walk away, would Jesus have even been there for that rich one to pose his question?
Did God lead Jesus into disappointment? Did Jesus give up because he hadn't known the man's heart? The event happened, and it afforded a teaching and learning opportunity — an opportunity for growth toward God. That's life.
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. (Mark 10:17-31)
So, perhaps Jonathan Elinoff will return to the fold and the one(s) who caused him to jump the gun with the supplied new/old material won't be in his ear, as he was in mine. The rich man asked Jesus. He didn't preach to Jesus.
Peace and truth,
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)