There is no doubt that WikiLeaks' Julian Assange is picking what to release, when, to whom, how, and under what memoranda of understanding with publishers. However, he didn't write the State Department cables. It should not be difficult for people to read every cable while keeping in mind that those writing the cables are working for the Empire. Unfortunately, the cables are being spun rather than being analyzed for what they are: internal propaganda even while filling directives (as cover sheets for raw data funneled to the State Department). Rawer data has so far not been released. We shall see.
Is Julian Assange a closet Zionist? That's the question being floated. In the video (below), Wayne Madsen doesn't take a position on it but leaves it open for speculation (somewhat reasonable). It appears though that Gordon Duff flat out believes that Julian Assange is a Mossad agent and WikiLeaks is a Mossad operation. Again, we shall see.
It is certainly true that Julian Assange has publicly belittled the 9/11 Truth Movement. For those who are unaware, the 9/11 Truth Movement has within it a set (a subset if you will) of people who have come to the conclusion that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Alan Sabrosky certainly believes it. (See: VIDEO SERIES: 100% SURE ISRAEL [ZIONISTS/NEOCONS] DID 911.) Â I say the neocons set it up. Neocons are Zionists. The CIA is loaded with neocons/Zionists. The Mossad and CIA do often work together.
I do not believe that Julian Assange is a Mossad agent or a CIA agent or the like. I am of the view that were Russian or Chinese secrets to find their way to WikiLeaks, those secrets would end up being released after whatever vetting process WikiLeaks is using. Considering the time between receipt and the time of release, there may be some heavy vetting going on. I take this position because the releases prior to this latest cablegate release reduced the Zionists' power.
Again, the most important thing is to read the cables always baring in mind who wrote them and why. The wording is crafted. The authors suck up to those who can remove them from their often cushy positions.
Were we to read cables between Russians about the Chinese or between Arab states about the U.S., we would be treated to, or subjected to, hearing about how wicked the Chinese are and/or Americans, as the case may be.
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)