Liar! "Saudi Arabia & Iran Have Nukes!" Says Alex Jones - YouTube

The standard Alex Jones uses when he says someone has been right every single time is not the same standard I use when discerning objective, absolute truth from mere maybes. Someone told Alex that Iran has nuclear weapons and Alex believe that his "source" fits perfectly into the mold in Alex's head for being a "right-thinking" person. Therefore, Iran has nuclear weapons for sure according to Alex. It's called confirmation bias, but Alex does it to the extreme. There are worse offenders out there, but Alex is in the top 1% of them.

I guarantee that Alex's "source" does not know that Iran has nuclear weapons.

The Zionists have tried and tried to conjure up proof of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program and have not been able to do it. The US had to back off it's statements that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program. They became worn down by people (including yours truly) hammering them for any independently verifiable hard evidence at all. They had none even though they had been claiming they did.

Obama's administration is now negotiating a deal with Iran because of all that hammering.

The only people who don't want such a deal are the neocons and Takfiris. Pick your poison. Which one is Alex on this subject?

One thing is perfectly clear. Alex is very, very, very soft on Zionism. Why is that? Why does he always go out of his way to say that he's not bashing or demonizing (or words to that effect) Israel?

The Zionists are stinking land thieves and war criminals. Who did the USS Liberty on purpose? Who let them get away with it. Zionists!

Alex was very hard on the Bush-43 administration for 9/11, but that administration was neocon through and through. Neocons are Zionists, always!

Who did 9/11 at the very, very top? Zionists. It's the only way WTC 7 could have happened. The Saudis sure couldn't have pulled it off.

Watch the liar:


Tom Usher

He's toned it down concerning Iran a tiny bit (leaning on his unnamed source) since the last time I heard him spew the lie, but the title of his video is still emphatically lying.

If you think I shouldn't call him a liar, I say to you that you don't care enough about how critically important it is that the Zionists not get away with attacking Iran for a nuclear-weapons program they haven't been shown to have. Jesus called people serpents. He turned over the tables. Don't ask me to be meek and mild when people's lives are on the line. There are times and places to be "polite" and such. Alex doesn't speak that language. He doesn't hear it. He regularly calls people scum. He won't hear me if I'm all soft and gentle and pleasant. I'm not hurting him. I'm trying to wake him up. He thinks he's awake. He's not. He's lost.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.