If WikiLeaks is a Neocon/Zionist disinfo op, roll out more like it: "GORDON DUFF: WIKILEAKS, A TOUCH OF ASSANGE AND THE STENCH OF AIPAC : Veterans Today"


I'll give my take after this from Gordon Duff:

Gordon Duff

Considering the massive corruption and drug scandals, even the revelations that President Karzai has been in negotiations with pranksters pretending to be the Talbian, all the really juicy stuff from Afghanistan must have been in another drawer. Then we got Iraq.  Ah, Iraq.  There, we could check.  We know the people who wrote the leaked material.  They told us Wikileaks edited it, altered it, redacted it more than the Pentagon.

The "Iraq War Log" was, well...phony. There is one thing that has been consistent about Wikileaks and our prediction is that this next batch, reputed to be millions of highly sensitive documents, will prove our point. Wikileaks is Israel.

Wikileaks is an intelligence operation to weaken and undermine the American government, orchestrated from Tel Aviv, using dozens of operatives, dual citizens, some at the highest authority levels, spies for Israel.   Through leaking carefully selected intelligence along with proven falsified documents, all fed to a controlled press, fully complicit, Wikileaks is, in fact, an act of war against the United States.


WikiLeaks has done a great deal of damage to the Zionist cause for war on Iran. If WikiLeaks is a Neocon/Zionist disinformation operation, I hope they roll out more just like it.

When I read the leaked documents, I don't have any problem keeping in perspective that WikiLeaks is not part of the 9/11 Truth Movement but is genuinely anti-war.

When I read the leaked documents, I know I'm reading people who are still on guard and manipulating or are completely duped even if they thought their writings/reports would never be exposed publicly the way they have been via WikiLeaks.

The Pentagon and CIA really do hate Julian Assange and have certainly considered killing him. They are concerned about the backlash were that to happen. They've "gamed" it, and it doesn't come out well for them; so, they've been trying other things, such as pushing the rape charges and various other propagandistic endeavors.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Mossad and other neocons have thought long and hard about how to "use" WikiLeaks. The idea though that they started WikiLeaks is still pure speculation.

Could the Mossad be stupid enough to do themselves more damage than "good" while still remaining concealed via some WikiLeaks type endeavor? We've seen them make many miscalculations. I'm not closing the door on Gordon's thesis. The Mossad certainly could have already infiltrated WikiLeaks to some degree.

Otherwise, I agree with Gordon Duff about AIPAC. He is right that Zionist propaganda has had a huge impact upon the world and that many, many people are still completely duped and asleep about it; but that's my point concerning WikiLeaks.

Julian Assange strikes me as still being "liberally" brainwashed about Zionism. Rather than decide at this point that he is a witting Mossad agent, put the history to him. Plenty of neocon/liberal dupes have been slowly waking up about 9/11. It would be stupid to shoot everyone coming through that door out of the darkness and into the light of truth about 9/11, the neocons, the Mossad, and the CIA, etc.

I'm not suggesting we should mince words. I've been openly critical of Geraldo Rivera for his snobby attitude about those who were awake long before he even started seeing any light at all about 9/11. However, if he will come down off his high horse and admit he was duped and that those who have been chanting in the streets "9/11 was an inside job" were miles ahead of him, then welcome to the Truth Movement (which is the 9/11 Truth Movement).

I've seen a few "hints" that the 9/11 Truth Movement is also a Mossad/Illuminati operation. Well, there truly are people out there who get way too carried away with themselves. The "Illuminati" is humanist-elitist through-and-through. The 9/11 Truth Movement is the antithesis of that, even though there are elements/people within it who are still dupes of humanist-elitists (Koch brother oil/gas maniacs and various New Agers, for example).

Let me wrap up by saying Gordon Duff really, really, really doesn't like the Zionists. I don't blame him a bit for it.


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 WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.