It should be absolutely illegal for anyone in government to do these "stings." There is no way for anyone to know whether or not a person such as Mohamed Osman Mohamud (what's with the two different spellings?) would ever have done anything without government enticement/incitement?
When a government engages in these sting operations, it is acting in the capacity of the evil tempter or temptress, as the case may be. In clean and clear conscience, how can the people condone such activity by their government?
You will note that the article refers to "coded language." Who broke this coded language? How do we know that there was language used that means what we are vaguely supposed to accept meant Mohamud was really final on some desire to inflict injury and death on Americans just because they are Americans (many of whom are adamantly opposed to US foreign policy under Bush/Obama, etc.).
I would not be a bit surprised to learn that the "code-breaker" is some Zionist/Mossad-front organization that will stoop to anything to build a Zionist empire covering the entire Middle East.
Someone or some group working in government could very easily put bureaucratic empire building above morality and see Mohamed Osman Mohamud as an easy tool to create a situation that would not otherwise ever occur and where "law-enforcement" and/or "intelligence" may characterize itself/themselves as the heroes — Â saving the crowd in Portland from the dreaded terrorist (they helped to create).
The article does not provide a transcription of all of the communicationsÂ Mohamed Osman Mohamud had with the alleged Pakistani(s) or with US government agents. There is no way based upon the article that any thinking person can be confident that the government did not spur onÂ Mohamed Osman Mohamud.
The government has been caught often acting as provocateur. Â Provoking people is decidedly evil. Therefore, when the government engages in such activity, it is evil. There is no other correct way of viewing it.
The government was evil regardingÂ Mohamed Osman Mohamud and has not made things better but rather worse.
If the government got wind of Mohamed Osman Mohamud communicating with anyone in Pakistan for evil reasons, then the proper thing to have done would have been to work on Mohamed Osman Mohamud to convert him from any evil intentions or thoughts. The best way to have done that would have been to take away his ammunition, not supply him with it (inert or not).
By the way, the government has provided live explosives. For example, the first Twin Towers bombing was done with FBI supplied explosives — a fact largely ignored and suppressed in the corporate, propagandistic, mainstream media. Consider that if you think the 9/11 Truth Movement is a joke. I repeat. The FBI supplied the explosives in the first Twin Towers bombing. Americans died in that bombing. If the van-bomb had been parked a little differently, it is theorized that the whole building could have come down. How many thousands (tens of thousands) would have died due to the FBI bomb? Yet, there are those who remain spellbound saying the US government would never....
Also consider the lie that was the Gulf of Tonkin incident upon which the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based that really revved up the Vietnam War on account of which there are 58,195 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC (not to mention the millions of Vietnamese who died and are yet dying due to Agent Orange and other US-war causes). Yet, 1) the government would never sacrifice non-military (civilian) Americans and 2) the thousands who were there and who knew it was a fake would have come out about it. Well, some actually did come out about it, but the naysayers plugged their ears just as they have had them plugged about 9/11.
Taking away the ammunition from Mohamed Osman Mohamud would have consisted of properly addressing grievances and giving aid and assistance to relieve pain and suffering, etc.
I am totally against these stings.
To me, they are disgusting. I do not look upon those who do these stings as heroes or saviors or protectors in any sense of those words. I view them as exactly what I said above: Tempters. Another name for the Tempter is Satan. They, in my religion, are the sons and daughters of Satan.
In addition, the point of doing it the evil way is to instill fear in the hearts of the people so that they will accept a police state. Once all the surveillance and other technology is in place, those behind those at the controls will be in a position to dictate whatever they want and to cause people to simply disappear without cause.
Right now, we have the furor over the unhealthy pornographic scanners and sexual molestations at the airports. The coercive-control freaks are planning scanners everywhere. Since the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland was chosen as the target (supposedly by Mohamud, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government planted that idea), the government will now have the sheep being led to the slaughter believing that it is in everyone's best selfish interest that the government scan everyone moving about anywhere and everywhere.
Listen, you won't be allowed out of your house without being scanned at your door. It isn't to stop there either. You will be required to have scanners/sensors in your house full time. If you break them or disable them or block them, you will be arrested and placed in an environment where you will be unable to turn off the surveillance.
Furthermore, the surveillance will be networked to super computers that will read everything about you gauging your reaction to the whole lack of freedom and privacy. If it "thinks" it detects any lack of total submission and subservience to the state of affairs, you will be dealt with.
The methods of dealing with you will change rapidly until the machines will do with you whatever they want.
At some point, humans will lose control over the machines/computers. The technology will eventually struggle with issues, just as humans struggle now.
The curtain will be drawn back.
Will we let things get to this point, or will we turn in time?
The wrong people are in charge. The greedy are in charge. They are the wrong leaders. They have been leading humanity to Hell for thousands of years, and the process is greatly accelerating before your very eyes. Open them all the way.
We need universal repentance before it is too late. We need the Christian Commons everywhere. Please join now. Spread the 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)