Bush/Cheney have severely damaged the Republican Party. They had plenty of help from the Tom DeLay types, of course; but, Bush has been taken to task behind closed doors. He's been reined in by Republicans who were on the outs with the neocons. He's been given the word, and now is his last chance to turn things before the Republicans bottom out in the estimation of the people.
US proxy Ethiopia into Somalia

When the neocons sent Ethiopia into Somalia, it really liked the results. They liked using the proxy. There was no backlash from the American people who are preoccupied with Iraq or the ridiculously early presidential campaigning or by the fluff of mind-numbing so-called entertainment.

The need for pretext

Bush has been told that the US attacking Iran head on in a first strike (on transparently falsified grounds, without a supposed fool-proof pretext) would be political suicide for the Republican 2008 presidential bid. It would cement the Democrats in power in the White House and Congress for a long time to come, long enough to dramatically alter the complexion of the Supreme Court from leaning to the false conservative to leaning way over in the false-liberal direction. Choose your poison. Choose your brand of half-truths.

Therefore, will Israel have to get a war started somehow with Iran where Israel has the pretext to strike first? Then Bush will be free to back Israel and to step in under other pretexts.

Neocons: Anti-golden rule

Understand, the strategy has always been a regional-cum-global war. Michael Ledeen and the other rabid neocons and false Zionists have been trying mightily all along to get the US to attack everywhere much faster. In truth, if a regional war was the Bush-aim, he should have attacked every listed state-sponsor of terrorism right off the bat. Of course, war is evil. It is good that Michael Ledeen wasn't in charge. He thinks the road to utopia lies through dystopia.

Well, he's right and wrong. It will get much worse before it gets much better. It is going to hit bottom before it rises to the top to stay. The problem for the neocons though is that those who bring dystopia are going to hell, going to reap the harvest of the seeds they sowed, which are anti-golden rule, no matter how they rationalize their ends as being utopian. They can lie to the people that they have noble reasons. They can lie to themselves. However, they have heard the Gospel message and will here it more and more in plain and clear terms, so plain and so clear, so stark, that they dare not reject it or they will suffer the same fate that the rejecters suffered at the hands of the Roman legions and the Nazis.

The way to the top is the golden rule. When humanity hits bottom, it will realize that en mass for the first time since the fall, the first selfish act (evil; knowing selfishness; sin).

Political fallout

Anyway, on account of the political fallout (the 2006 election results and the prospects for a Democratic presidency) that stem directly from the 9-11 questions (false flag) and all the Iraq lies and exposed corruption of corporations, campaign financing, lobbying, spying, torture, etc., etc. {à la Enron, Jack Abramoff, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the NSA, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary renditions, etcetera}, Bush is really pushing the line that he doesn't want to, and isn't planning to, hit Iran. He will hit them only with sufficient cover, with sufficient "I told you so" cover (pretext).

A Deal with North Korea

It's why they've made it look as if a deal with North Korea is all but signed, to show how responsible he has become, how hard he's trying. It's an old technique that the Israel false-Zionists use all the time vis-à-vis the Palestinians. See, we try (even though at the same time they are working behind the façade to make sure the touted plan doesn't work), and they don't just settle down to allow us to lord it over them.

We've also been there before with North Korea. There is a long history of getting to the edge of a deal only to have it fall through on the flimsiest grounds. That's because the North Korea leadership doesn't trust anyone. They rightly suspect every move by the US no matter how good it looks to the unsuspecting. They know that the ultimate aim of US leadership is capitalistic, oligarchical hegemony. They know that the US is interested in using the carrot and stick.

It would be good for North Korea to disarm from nuclear weapons, but the under-ten-billion dollar deal being offered isn't much considering the cost the US would run if it were to bomb them into non-nuclear capability. Also, the oligarchs will still hate them. They're still a closed society. They're still a Communist dictatorship.

If Bush and his neocons aren't to shoot the Republican Party in the foot again, nearly the only other thing, aside from the Israelis taking the proxy-lead, is another attack within the US. However, the planners know full well that the American people would never buy it that the Iranians had attacked the US on US soil. They're too wise to it now, and the Iranians just aren't viewed in that light. They aren't looked at as the US has painted the neocon-asset al Qaeda.

There are plenty of good-hearted, albeit slightly misdirected, Israelis

You may wonder in the US why Israel hasn't just gone ahead and done it already. Well, the US is getting itself in place first. Also, what we aren't told in the US by the American mainstream media is that there are plenty of people in Israel who know that the neocons are insane. They remember the promise of the kibbutzim mentality, which, had the Israelis continued but at the same time had been truly good neighbors, the world would look very much different than it does today.


It was not to be. The prophecy is real, and the prophecy is to hit bottom first.

All those who live the exemplary life of the non-coercive and golden-rule kibbutzim, crediting God and Jesus Christ for magnifying the message with his life and self-sacrifice, will reap the golden harvest of those seeds no matter how bleak the naysayers make things. Perseverance, patience, doing the golden rule through thick and thin, is the only path to salvation and redemption. Repent and atone. Forgive and be forgiven.

Help to bring forth.

Our next article will be on the subject of name-calling and how it fits in with this. When is it right, and when is it wrong.


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.