Based on your links it's true. From Wikipedia:

1953 Iranian coup d'état

99.9% in a national election? That seems to be a bit much.

IRAN: 99.93% Pure

The Shah was head of state both before and after the coup restoring him to power. The dictator Mossadegh had caused the Shah to flee the country after refusing the Shah's power as head of state to remove him as head of government.

Thanks for the links, saved me some trouble. From Wikipedia:

1953 Iranian coup d'état

My goodness, 99.9% in a national election? This is extraordinary.

IRAN: 99.93% Pure

"democratically elected government" eh?

IRAN: 99.93% Pure

That is a bit backwards before you get to the question of improbable election results.

A "Prime Minister" ruling by decree after dissolving parliament and then justifying it with a faked election isn't really much of a democracy, is it?

The Shah was head of state both before and after the coup restoring him to power. The dictator Mossadegh had caused the Shah to flee the country after refusing the Shah's power as head of state to remove him as head of government.

Why do you omit this history? Why pretend that the Shah only held power after he was restored to power and not before as well?

I strongly suggest that you don't test your theories in court, get a lawyer.

Do tell.

U.S. Missile Base Braces for Soviet Inspectors
SOVIET INF MONITORS COMPLETE FIRST U.S. INSPECTIONS

Have a great day Comrade.

I'm pretty sure the judges that rotate in for FISA court duty don't hate the US, but I like your bucking of the Slashmind conspiracy ideas.

The people of Persia have existed for thousands of years. The Islamic Republic of Iran has only existed for a few decades, and has fostered suicide bombings and Islamic revolution around the world.

Much as Germany wouldn't self-immolate just for a chance to kill a few million Jews? Oddly enough there is another country so inclined to attempt that feat. Any guesses on that? You should look into the question of Germany's use of railway shipping to send Jews to death camps versus sending supplies to the fighting fronts.

The coup was a counter-coup. The Iranian PM was the one that overthrew the government, faked an election, dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and caused the Shah to flee.

The "Horse shit" prefix wasn't needed, at least some of us could identify the content of your post without it.

The government of Iran had been overthrown by the Prime Minister who faked an election, dissolved parliament, and was ruling by decree while ignoring the Shah as constitutional monarch. (You know, the traditional head of government being responsible to head of state?) Not even Stalin faked elections as brazenly as the Iranian PM. The Shah fled for his own safety. The US and UK helped restore the Shah to power, not install him.

Iran was also an ally of Israel but that changed with the Islamic revolution and Iran's turning on the Jewish state as well as the US. The bad blood between Iran and Israel is Iran's doing.

So in your mental map of the universe you wouldn't find a justice appointed by a Republican president voting for something like ... say .. "gay marriage" or Obamacare? Perhaps even casting the deciding vote? There may be a gap between your thinking and current events / history.

If the court found it legal before what would have changed? Nothing. Easy decision for them.

You should probably look into the question of the court forcing the Justice Department to alter applications for warrants. That is far more common than outright rejection. Applications for those warrants are inches thick. Do you think they like to redo them? Do you think they'll just slap some nonsense together just to see if they can slip by? If you think that you probably don't have any insight into the legal system, or the professionalism of judges and lawyers as officers of the court. Why would those jobs be highly competitive and credentialed if you can just slap some nonsense crap together and get by?

So are you thinking constitutional amendment, constitutional convention, a vigorous letter writing / lobbying campaign, or ... cough *armed insurrection* cough?

Is the straw that broke the camel's back for you Citizens United, Obamacare, gay marriage, NSA collecting phone records, or warm beer?

BINGO!!

They are ordinary judges that serve on a rotating basis on that court. They are selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The judges who preside over America's secret court

Hatred for America? How do you think that plays out between findings for gay marriage versus findings that allow continued surveillance against terrorism?

When you find an extra tough, virulent, deadly bacteria, don't let the damn thing get loose!

It would be great if that were true, but it probably isn't in the long run. Children don't have to consent to lots of things that happen to them now. There are other societies that have or have had child brides, so there are obviously social mechanisms to enable that. With diversity and immigration policies brining in more and more people from those societies I wouldn't be surprised if they considerably outnumber the gay population now. That is before you even consider traditional pedophiles. Over time advocates for minor-adult sex will have more political power. Speaking of political power, I hear there is a former Speaker of the House paying millions in hush money over sex with a minor decades ago. Besides, there are 50 years of prep coming to enable it, academicians working on normalizing minor-adult sex now, just as there were people doing that for homosexuality decades ago. In some parts of society, such as Hollywood, powerful people are known as child abusers, and nothing is said. Fifty years ago homosexual marriage couldn't happen. Today child marriage "can't happen," but that isn't likely to remain true as things stand. Standards were destroyed to enable homosexual marriage, they won't magically reappear when needed to stop child marriages.