WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
I just thought I'd share with you that Veterans Today has again deleted comments that they cannot handle and that show them to be anything but honest. The comments below are exactly word-for-word as to what was on that site, and I'd of course take a lie-detector test about that.
Would Gordon Duff and/or Lila Rajiva take a lie-detector test claiming they did not delete my comments? You know the answer to that.
Anyway, you can see the screen shot of the other comment on the other post, which comment was also deleted (perhaps more of my comments now that they understand that I will continue to call out their fabrications, distortions, and extremely terrible, even often worthless so-called journalism).
I look forward to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks exposing the Zionists and Mossad in no uncertain terms.
Gordon Duff is a lousy journalist. He's no better than the Mainstream that uses the same cowardly censoring methods. He's actually worst than the MSM because he represents himself to be a truthful alternative. He gives all the rest of us a bad reputation.
I find his methods absolutely despicable, and anyone who uses him as a source after learning of his censoring me to duck the most probative and on-point questions should be ashamed, as he should be ashamed.
I wouldn't write for Veterans Today for an instant million dollars other than to repeat these same ideas about how lousy Veterans Today is with Gordon Duff at it's helm. Now, if they turn to truthful methods and repent, that will be a new day.
LILA RAJIVA: "But then there's also Assange's citation of Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish Israeli prime minister who's praised Wikileaks. And there's Assange's statement in The Australian crediting Rupert Murdoch, a hard-line Zionist and one of the biggest promoters of war with Iraq, as his inspiration."
You've taken these completely out of context and twisted them to fit your preconceived "Gordon Duff" agenda. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for both of these that have nothing to do with the idea that Julian Assange is what Veterans Today has been claiming. You are not practicing journalism but rather crucifixion without benefit of even a kangaroo trial.
Try stating that when in public, Netanyahu is in full-time spin mode. Also try reading Assange's op-ed with the view that he was shaming Rupert Murdoch, which he was.
My comment over on the article LILA RAJIVA: ZIONIST MINDCONTROL – The Case Against Wikileaks, Part I : Veterans Today.
I received a reply:
Lila Rajiva says:
December 27, 2010 at 11:20 am
Hi Tom -
First – isn't "crucifixion" a tad feverish, especially around Christmas time?
In the second place, no one is "trying" Assange. A few of us (very few) are asking a few probing questions, while the majority of the world's leading media outlets (print, TV, and blogs) are crowning Julian king of Transparency.
We're just trying to figure out the power behind the throne..
Kind of what real journalists do, right?
Try reading everything I've written about Assange going back a year or so...
Kind regards and Happy Holidays
Tom Usher says:
December 27, 2010 at 11:35 am
No, it isn't feverish. You say try reading everything you've written, but have you read everything Gordon has been writing about Assange. He's definitely found him guilty, and what's more you damn well know that's true about Gordon. Why don't you admit it right here?
Unfortunately, "journalism" really is leaning in your direction, your style; but that's a bad thing. You're a little easier to read than Gordon but not much — not nearly good enough.
As for the birth of Christ, if you think about that and forget his work on the Cross, you just don't get the birth. Anyway, the Resurrection is another birth, and I don't stop thinking about that when I raise that Crucifixion, not Julian's. I don't confuse the two.
Kind of changing the subject there, right?
How about coming back to your mischaracterizations concerning Netanyahu and Murdoch, or do you have a problem not pulling the typical ducking ploy.
I also added another comment:
Tom Usher says:
December 27, 2010 at 11:23 am
"And then about global warming (Assange seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming)..."
Didn't he publish the "Climategate" emails?
And as for 9/11, aren't there still people who are struggling with it? Who's Geraldo Rivera? Aren't you into "better late than never"? I am.
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)