I left the following comment on YouTube:
They left out the part where Hillary said you might not like what they (Al-Jazeera) say. She doesn't, very often anyway. There's a great deal on Al-Jazeera that is still hated by the powers that be in the US. As for WikiLeaks, everything it leaks it doesn't necessarily agree with. It leaked a great deal of US State Dept. underlings telling higher-ups what they wanted to hear — hardly that Julian Assange agrees with it all. Isn't that right, RUSSIA Today? That's "Russia," right, a US rival that isn't exactly a paragon of truth-telling?
I then shared the YouTube video on Facebook and used my comment as the lead-in there. It garnered a Facebook comment that is a link to an Utne Reader article here: The Conspiracy Channel — Features — Utne Reader.
Here's what I replied about that Utne Reader article:
I'm actually a 9/11 Truther (which is far from a "small minority"), but RT is not seeking pure truth.
I do watch RT and definitely do not discount all of it just because it's RT.
I take each story one at a time and use multiple sources, etc.
The Utne Reader piece is false-propaganda to a large degree too only by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Some people treat the Southern Poverty Law Center as if it is speaking for God, just as some people think Alex Jones is speaking for God.
The truth is that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Alex Jones both speak truth and spread false propaganda (whether wittingly or unwittingly).
I believe they both know when they are spreading false-propaganda or at least ignoring real facts being presented by the other side.
I love the truth no matter what! I don't want to be spreading false-propaganda ever. I always want to know the facts being presented by all sides.
What I take the greatest exception to in the Utne Reader article is that it holds that 9/11 Truth is "anti-American propaganda."
Look, the Utne Reader is blind on purpose to the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7 of the WTC. That building absolutely did not, I repeat, did not come down due to office fires and the minor damage from flying debris from the Twin Towers. They knew it was about to be brought down because police officers were order to announce it on the streets below, which they did. It's on video. There were strong explosions right before it started coming down. It was also unmistakably captured on audio-video. There was even an audible countdown according to a credible witness. An emergency coordinator of Emergency Management for the New York Housing Authority, Barry Jennings, was in the building right before it came down and immediately testified outside to TV journalists as to the explosions (and many other things) that were going on in the building before it came down. (See: "NEW INFORMATION ON THE DEATH OF 911 EYEWITNESS BARRY JENNINGS SEEMS TO POINT TO FOUL PLAY)."
Whether there was foul play, it hasn't been investigated by people who aren't controlled by those who controlled the demolition of Building 7. Barry is far from the only person who was speaking out about 9/11 being an inside job to some degree to "mysteriously" die. The list is quite long, just as the list is quite long of those who died around the John F. Kennedy assassination/coup d'Ã©tat.
All I have to say at this point for this blog post is that if the Utne Reader thinks the US isn't capable of false-flag operations, the people at the Utne Reader haven't read very widely.
It is irrefutable that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking military men at the time, submitted Operation Northwoods to then President John F. Kennedy, who was the only person who stood in the way of it being carried out. George W. Bush was, and remains, no John F. Kennedy. George W. Bush suggested to Tony Blair that the US and UK paint a plane to look like a UN plane and to fly it (probably via autopilot) over Iraq in an attempt to get Saddam Hussein's forces to possibly shoot it down (See: "Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane'"). Then Bush and Blair would use that as more pretext to attack Iraq. Can you trust such a "President" not to kill Americans?
How many Americans have died in Iraq for Bush's rotten cause (greed!)? To Bush, Grunts are expendable. Oh, he'll shed a tear — after he's gotten them killed for "America," after they've murdered for "America." They are tools of the imperialist elite, the self-authorized masters of the universe, the evil ones.
It was definitely not necessary to attack Iraq to get Saddam Hussein to change. He had changed many times before. He didn't want to lose power and was quite ready to knuckle under short of being totally removed from power.
By the way, the Iraq people still aren't better off out from under Hussein. Someday they may be, but it won't be at all on account of what George W. Bush and his fellow lying, neocon, Zionists did.
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)