A poll shows that 24% of American adults feel that the Bush administration has not been confrontational enough with Iran. 37% say the Bush administration is handling things about right. Combined, that's 61%.

From a different poll, 83% of "likely voters" are in favor of economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran. (If you don't vote, the pollsters don't reflect your view. That's not right.)

It is telling that most are buying into all the propaganda of the false Zionists and others.

The people are constantly bombarded with so-called experts saying that Iran is doing this or that vis-à-vis Iraq and Hezbollah, etc. They are constantly saying that Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. They say Iran is building nuclear weapons and getting help from North Korea. However, the US and Israel, the great liars, never supply any proof for any of these accusations.

Of course Iran isn't perfect, but why are people being stirred to war without even any proof shown to them unless those people are evil hearted?

This is the same damnable thing as when Colin Powell gave his presentation to the UN about Iraq and then quietly called all the information he spewed "bullsh_t."

So, if people know now that it was "bullsh_t" then, why are they eating it again now about Iran?

The answer is twofold. First, many are just unaware beyond the most superficial mainstream TV news sound-bite coverage. Second, many want the final outcome they see as the US hegemony over the oil fields, not to deny others so much as to just continue their wasteful, polluting, selfish lives.

The Bush administration is ramping up to attack Iran with the largest aerial bombardment in history using tactical nuclear-tipped deep-ground penetrating weapons and many other kinds and types of explosives. The Bush administration plans to test out many new weapons that have come online since the invasion of Baghdad.

The results will be catastrophic-much worse than the results have been in isolation for Iraq.

The result will be a three- or four-fold (geometric) escalation in hostilities. Russia and China in particular will become extremely concerned. They are already very concerned. They know full well that the US and UK and Israel with much of NATO in tow could easily end up turning on them too.

The war will immediately be in three contiguous nations: Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Look at the map. Look at what is just north of those nations. There's tons more oil and gas in the North. That's Russia's backyard.

The Russians are still extremely capable technologically. If China and Russia had to team up with the Arabs and Persians for war with the US, et al., how far away would a nuclear exchange be? When would the other weapons be brought out of the closets? What secret weapons are giving the US so much confidence?

The US military is openly hinting around that it won't put massive boots on the ground in Iran, but once Iran is hit, Iran will be at war against the US and Israel (a supposed US ally). Iran will send its troops to wherever they can blend in and hit at Americans. Where will the Americans be if not in Iran? They will be in Afghanistan and Iraq and in bases scattered about the region. Will the US withdraw to leave the area in civil strife? Will Muslims in general finally figure it out that the US, UK, and Israel are at war with Arabs and Persians and more to the point, Islam?

The will figure it out to a large degree (most already know it), and that will suck in NATO and cause others, who will want the US to bleed, to supply the Muslims. (Russia has been openly supplying Iran for example.)

This ploy by George W. Bush and Cheney and all the PNAC monsters to start the region and world on fire and to use even more evil weapons is straight from the bowels of hell.

The neocons and false Zionists have been working to ignite total war. They want a total war with Islam so they can vanquish Islam and suppress and kill all dissent everywhere. They want a pretext for massive killing on a scale that makes what has been happening in Iraq look like a tiny thing by comparison. They want killing that will be to WWII what WWII was to WWI.

They are looking for many hundreds of millions, even billions, to be killed by an ever-widening war.

They want to reduce the global population. They want the resources and land for themselves. They want ethnic groups to be wiped out or hugely reduced to just serve as slaves, literally. They want to escalate war to the point where troop numbers will not be determinant but rather the stomach and stupidity and sheer evil capacity for wars of annihilation using Satan's favorite tools: Science and technology.

They want to ratchet up the war so they may exterminate people whom they will identify as mortal threats by virtue of bloodline.

This is where the war with Iran is heading the world.

They will want history to reflect that it all began on 9-11 and that the Muslims started it. However, the truth is that it started long before and it was the greedy who started it.

Games with history

The greedy play games with history.

The US put forth a measure in the UN General Assembly to condemned Holocaust denial. Iran was the lone dissenter. Iran said that the Holocaust should be studied to better determine the extent of the Holocaust.

It is interesting that as the media reports on this, it also continues to repeat the misquotation that Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped off the map" while we know that that is not a word-for-word translation by any stretch. It is also interesting that the US publicizes this UN resolution, although it vetoed every UN resolution calling Zionism racism. Only the US and Israel have consistently voted against condemning Zionism as a form of racism, which it most assuredly is. One need only look at how the false Zionists have historically treated Arabs and referred to Blacks and others.

[Concerning the Holocaust-denial resolution, Iranian UN delegate Hossein Gharibi] accused the United States and Israel of pushing the resolution "to pursue their narrow political interests through all means" and said Iran dissociated itself "from this entire hypocritical political exercise."

"The Israeli regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Jewish people in the past as a cover for the crimes its [sic] has perpetrated over the past six decades against Palestinians," he said.

He was not alone in criticizing Israel.

Venezuela, while supporting the resolution, said Israel's "excesses under the pretext of legitimate defense has led to a new holocaust against the Palestinian people." The South American country, whose President Hugo Chavez is harshly critical of U.S. foreign policy, extended that comparison to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

"The deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also a holocaust and therefore we should remember them," said Venezuelan delegate Marco Palavicini. "Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are victims of the invasion in the name of democracy. They too are victims of a holocaust."

Egypt, meanwhile, urged people worldwide to combat "the rising tide of Islamophobia in many parts of the world" as they remember the victims of the Holocaust.

Indonesia echoed that appeal, recalling the uproar in many Muslim countries over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European nations last year. Indonesia suggested that the same moral standards that inspire abhorrence of Holocaust denial should apply to the publication of such cartoons. 1

These are all half-truth points, but still, the half that's truth must not be denied.

All sides are expert in half-truths. Let us throw off the falsehood halves on all sides and combine all the truth halves. Then we will have only the truth that is that all sides have been deplorably wrong.


1 "U.N. General Assembly adopts resolution condemning Holocaust denial." The Associated Press. International Herald Tribune. January 26, 2007. (last accessed: Saturday, January 27, 2007). Return to text body.


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.
    • Okay, so this is test number two I making from the standard WordPress blog-commenting system rather than from the Facebook system above it on the Real Liberal Christian Church blog.

      I'm still logged out as the WordPress admin.