WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
UPDATE 1: Check this out. Gordon Duff couldn't handle my questions. He censored me. Let see how long this repost of the deleted comment lasts: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/21/wikileaks-is-poison-ii-deconstruction-of-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-156728. Are you going to believe a guy like that? Put some tough and direct comments and questions to him, and he runs away.
If I had been spamming or refusing to answer questions back or been off topic or anything that even remotely might merit censorship other than that Gordon's a phony, I would understand the comment deletions. For Gordon Duff to delete my on-topic comments is really weak.
At one point I had been giving him some credibility — the benefit of the doubt while I waited to see where reading his stuff might lead. Now I just think he's just like all the other fakers out there. He's not interested in the truth. He acts like all he wants is notoriety for being a wacko all to drum up who knows what. Does he really make money writing utterly unsubstantiated, malevolent rumors about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?
Let's not fall for the utterly false statement that WikiLeaks takes the position that "only 150K Iraqis died during the invasion." The cables allege it, not Julian Assange or WikiLeaks.
I've called out Gordon Duff on that sort of thing and much more and had it out with him on his blog a bit over this whole affair: The allegation that Julian Assange is a Mossad Agent.
Gordon didn't even know that Daniel Domscheit-Berg was involved while he, Gordon, used as a source for his statement that WikiLeaks was "BUSTED" (Gordon's) term, a Syrian-exile rag called Syria Truth that claimed Daniel Domscheit-Berg accused Julian of taking an Israeli bribe to suppress cables covering Israel. Gordon hadn't even bothered to follow the links before he crucified Julian Assange. He still hasn't apologized for it (even in a qualified way). In fact, he only managed to make his situation worse.
His quipped replies are hardly worth answering, but I did anyway for the sake of real truth.
Gordon Duff has had a clear opportunity to speak intelligently to the issues but has summarily rejected it. Here is a comment thread where I did my best to get him to move to a more reasoned position where he doesn't prematurely throw the baby out with the bath water.
Now, you might wonder when it's ever right to throw a baby out with the bath water. Well, it depends upon what baby you've been bathing. If you wake up to realize you've been trying to nurse a vaporous snake.... Well, let it fend for itself in the wild. Humans nurture. Snakes by reason of their very DNA do not. Venomous snakes will bite the heel in this case, that feeds them.
Tom Usher says:
December 22, 2010 at 10:59 pm
"Vindicated: cryptome.org Reports: "Daniel Domscheit-Berg Denies Rumor of Assange-Israeli Deals" http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12/22/cryptome-org-reports-daniel-domscheit-berg-denies-rumor-of-assange-israeli-deals.html
Let's help each other to keep unsubstantiated allegations as such rather than rushing to take them as proof of guilt.
Gordon Duff says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:49 pm
I was unaware that Daniel Dumbshit was involved....
You are saying you can prove he knows that ultra-secretive assange isn't ultrasecretive assange?
no wonder people call you a shill
Tom Usher says:
December 23, 2010 at 10:51 am
You were unaware that Daniel Domscheit-Berg was involved? You use the Syria Truth article in your "BUSTED – WIKILEAKS WORKING FOR ISRAEL" article. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/08/gordon-duff-busted-wikileaks-working-for-israel/
THEN THE SHOE DROPS ON ASSANGE
Today we learn that Assange is also a creature of Israel, bankrolled by spies, running a disinformation site with help from Fox News, the New York Times and other media giants. A confirmed news story from the "IndyPress" has Assange in bed with Israeli intelligence;
"Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added."
ASSANGE AND 9/11
The IndyPress (it's IndyBay) http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php article points to it's source, which is Syria Truth (syriatruth.info). That article cites Daniel Domscheit-Berg as the source for the accusation against Julian Assange. Now Daniel Domscheit-Berg has said it's not true.
Meanwhile, there's this: "Syria Truth Stands by Article, Calls Daniel Domscheit-Berg Liar?, and Will Release Emails": http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12/23/syria-truth-stands-by-article-calls-daniel-domscheit-berg-liar-and-will-release-emails.html [See also my "UPDATE 1" on that link.]
Now, I don't know who calls me a shill. A shill for whom? If you read my articles, you'll see that I go with the truth no matter what.
The difference between the two of us, Gordon, is that you went from maybe Assange is Mossad to that he definitely is and you did it in the same article. You did it based upon appearances.
Now we are hearing from Julian Assange that he has documentation on Israel and is planning to release it. He's already said quite a bit about it.
The truth is that you jumped the gun; and rather than being contrite, you refer to me as a shill. What I said was that you should stick to the term "alleged" until the evidence is vastly better. That was sound advice.
You're way out on the end of the limb, Gordon. I'm simply saying you should get back to where it might better support you.
I'm an anti-Zionist every bit as much as you are. In fact, I believe I'm even more so. I'm also a 9/11 Truther. I also know that Israel did the USS Liberty knowing the whole time it was a US ship.
What I'm not is in favor of crucifying people especially when there hasn't even been a real trial. You've charged, tried, and convicted Assange for being an Israeli agent (although you hedged at the same time, which I wrote about on my blog). What's your sentence? Would you just take him out and shoot him before he's even had a chance to prove his innocence?
If he doesn't release leaks on Israel even though the U.S. government or some other doesn't have him in solitary, then you can complain. If he does release them, then you can apologize profusely on your site or can expect to go to Hell. I say that as a Christian. The same rule applies to me.
Honestly, Gordon, think about it.
Gordon Duff says:
December 23, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Massive damage has been done already. Where was your apology when the edited Israeli wikileak came out on Afghanistan? You are long in default. As for the christianity ploy, no excuse for dumb.
Tom Usher says:
December 25, 2010 at 12:38 am
Point to "the edited Israeli wikileak" that "came out on Afghanistan." Is this another twist of yours, or is it just the exception that proves the rule?
Are you capable of debate, or are you just an expert in using terms such as "shill" and "dumb"?
Do you think it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb that you didn't answer the obvious questions or acknowledge your less than stellar journalism?
We all make mistakes and have our failings, but it appears you aren't capable of admitting yours.
You will eat your words, Gordon.
I no longer find Gordon Duff credible, although I'm still a 9/11 Truther and believe much the same as he alleges he believes concerning the USS Liberty and a number of other issues where we apparently (if he's being honest) share views.
Gordon's work on this whole area has been very, very weakly supported, and that's being charitable (See: "Julian Assange: Proven Zionist, Israeli, Mossad Agent? Prove It.")
I don't profess to understand what's going through Gordon Duff's mind. I don't know his heart. I do think he's been ridiculous on this issue and that, that doesn't do the cause of anti-Zionism any favor. I hope that it is just his fervor clouding his judgment and that it is not closet something at work.
I think you should always make clear the difference between WikiLeaks' positions and what is written in the cables and other leaks. They are not necessarily the same thing at all.
If and when real evidence comes out against Julian Assange showing that he has been an Israeli agent, then you will hear from me that he's lower than a diseased sewer rat sneaking about to eat the fingers and toes of sleeping human babies.
I believe he has used and fleeced the CIA, not the other way around. He appears to be cleverer than the people at the top of the CIA, which really isn't saying much.
He's definitely brighter than Gordon Duff by levels of magnitude, and Gordon ought to acknowledge that. Don't hold your breath.
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)