WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
This is my direct reply to the following linked article byÂ Deborah Dupre, Human Rights Examiner:
Look, the title of this article is, "Capt. Hanley's '911 Inside job-No Muslims' shows WikiLeaks Psyop." Now consider the following logic: Geraldo Rivera was anti-9/11 Truth for nearly a decade. Only within the last month has he even begun to entertain the idea that he was mistaken about 9/11. Was he therefore a Mossad asset all that time? It is not a logical conclusion based upon the premises. At the same time, it also doesn't prove he wasn't either; but the burden of proof rests with the accuser in this case. The same applies in this case of Julian Assange.
Now, Julian Assange is not omniscient. He is not infallible. He has not considered in great detail every last aspect of the 9/11-Truth endeavor. With good reason though, most people suspect that Julian Assange knows more about the inner-workings of the secret levels of governments and other organizations than does Geraldo Rivera. Such knowledge or awareness will not guarantee that his thinking will be right on every issue. Such mundane knowledge or awareness also always remains limited. That Dan Hanley has said what he has in no way shows that WikiLeaks is a Psyop.
Deborah Dupre's argument though rests upon what she might characterize as the preponderance of evidence. However, all of that "evidence" remains unsubstantiated and largely circumstantial. Her "facts" remain allegations.
To say that Julian Assange not having subscribed to the 9/11 Truth Movement raises suspicions is one thing, to say that the fact that the Cablegate cables released to date have shown little negative appraisal of Zionism gives rise to speculation as to why is one thing, but to chisel in granite that Julian Assange is therefore a proven Mossad agent is quite another thing and wholly illogical.
You will please note that the supposed smoking gun that was the Syria Truth interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg has been left behind. Why is that? Well, I've been openly calling for an investigation into it and publicizing that call in addition to making a number of contacts with those directly involved and been met so far with a brick wall of silence. Why is that "Truth Movements" members?
Is that suspicious? I'm reserving judgment on it because people are so busy, myopic, fearful, and/or even unstable.
Yesterday, in another of Deborah's articles, I linked to some of my posts on this issue. The questions here need to be put to Daniel Domscheit-Berg. I'm asking Deborah to work to get right at the truth rather than using her considerable writing energy to beat around the periphery.
9/11 Truth has the collapse of Building 7 as its most striking fact. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is the strongest laser beam of the Movement. It's why Geraldo Rivera took a step back and considered. The fact that neoconservatives (aka Zionists) surrounded that whole event is the reason for a new, and this time thorough, investigation into events that leaves no neoconservative's cover left in place.
Our job is to get Julian Assange to see what Geraldo has caught a glimpse of. Assange has run in other circles than Alex Jones. Julian Assange could teach Alex Jones a thing or two and, obviously what with 9/11, vice versa.
If it turns out that Julian Assange is Mossad, then his credibility as an objective publisher of leaks will be shot. Let's find out whether or not he has been rather than just echo unsubstantiated claims that are now taken as proof positive.
Where's the mentality of due process in all of this? Deborah, you're the "Human Rights Examiner." It is a human right not to be guilty before being proven innocent beyond the shadow of doubt. Based upon unsubstantiated claims, are you ready to hand down a sentence against Assange? I'm not.
It strikes me that if a card carrying 9/11 Truther were in the exact same boat as Julian Assange handed the exact same leaks from Bradley Manning, he or she would be being mostly lauded by the "libertarians" and attacked by the "progressives," in a similar fashion as many are attacking Assange now.
Did anyone notice that Julian Assange in the TIME interview wanted to go on record for "States Rights"? It wasn't lost on me that he's not for a centralized government that strips regional, reasonable autonomy.
How can anyone pigeonhole him based upon such scant knowledge about his deepest ideological convictions and questions? Come on. We can do better than that.
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)