David Ray Griffin has written an article1 entitled, "Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq." You may find the entire article here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm on Information Clearing House.
This article ties together lots of ends. It is very extensively footnoted as well.
It appears that David Ray Griffin is facing up much more honestly to the truth about the Empire versus real Christianity than are the vast majority of those calling themselves Christian. We don't know all of his theology, but based upon what he's written in his article, we wonder where we would part company.
We don't agree with David's call for impeachment, per se. We agree that in the mundane, impeachment is called for. However, we emphasize that the house is divided—the US Constitution and the Gospel message are incompatible. Nevertheless, Bush and Cheney, et al., may be held to account by any house of which they claim membership. That much is not inconsistent with Christianity.
We also don't agree with David's leaning that neoconservatism is not inextricably tied into false Zionism. It is true that many neocons are not necessarily direct descendants of Jacob; however, the Pharisaic has a direct influence upon those neocons who are not such direct descendants. Neoconservatism is antichrist first and foremost. It is more than an agnostic or atheistic ideology. It is a theological statement.
We like that David has emphasized Dick Cheney's hand in ordering Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby to lay out the plan in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance.
We also like that David has emphasized the coming out of the closet, if you will, of the imperialists. The US had always tried to hide its violent, imperial ambitions from the American public in general and from the world at-large. It wasn't fooling the sophisticates. This may sound like "it takes one to know one," but it really doesn't have to be that way. Jesus could see the demons, because he stood in stark, righteous contrast to them. The gullible, once burned by Satan, are still standing too close to know.
We also like how David points out Charles Krauthammer as a nagging instigator. His sinister spirit is usually underestimated. He is giddy about America being relatively more powerful in every respect than was even the Roman Empire. All the neocons are now unashamed imperialists (advocates of the evil biblical Beast).
These monsters are all about militarism and war making. It is unabashedly Satanic.
David has certainly understated the meaning of "Full Spectrum Dominance." As we've explained in great detail in our work, There Is No Such Thing as a Conservative-Republican Christian: Jesus is a small-c communist, the US military seeks to dominate all matter and energy, time and space, the cosmos and heaven and hell, literally.
Of course, Griffin is correct to emphasize that the US military seeks unchallengeable dominance on the land, sea, and in the air. He also adds space and information (psy-ops). We add that they seek it in the mind and spirit, to control hearts over God, making it impossible for souls to turn to God, to righteousness. This, of course, God cannot allow. God must cut off and burn up the rotten branches for God's own namesake, for God's Holy word, the truth, salvation, love, and the real peace, not the phony Pax Americana.
David Ray Griffin mentions Albert Wohlstetter. We've written of him too along with others who came out of the Rand Corporation. These analysts falsely imagined and still imagine that they can test and calculate their way into omniscience (omni-science; all science). They just don't get it. God is in charge of what God will allow testing to accomplish. No one can test his or her way into divinity. It isn't there for acquisition by testing. It is only there by authenticity. Neocons are not authentic. They are unworthy, thank God. By this we don't mean that we don't want the neocons to turn to God. We mean that it is thanks to God that unrepented neocons are not the end-all-and-be-all; otherwise, there would be no salvation, no freedom from evil anywhere.
One must understand that the US government and all the presidents came under the spell of these mesmerizers to one degree or another. It was, and is, the inevitable consequence of the antichrist system of the US that stands against giving and sharing all in love and peace and purity of heart.
It is good that David points out how the neocons all chimed about how 9-11 was an opportunity. They all saw it as a rallying point much as WWII had supposedly brought the country together against a common foe. This time though, too many people know too much about all the lies that Bush and his fold told to get the US into war.
All of this is exactly what the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institute had planned based upon the same kind of sinister work of Sigmund Freud used very unethically by his nephew, Edward Bernays, to get the US into WWI for the sake of the global kleptomaniacs, oligarchs, usurers.
Griffin has done a good job in his article of pointing to the despicable policy of preventive attacks. Preventive wars are illegal in the mundane. Preventive wars are waged against potential military enemies; however, everyone is a potential military enemy under this doctrine. It is the height of hypocrisy. The truth is that under this doctrine, the only right thing to do is to kill everyone else. Look at that final result: Extinction of all potential for overcoming evil. Consider this doctrine in terms of what it means to mere citizenship. The system will calculate and measure and guess who will and who won't do what against the apostate state. Emotion police/terminators will be computer/robots set to automatic without override to sense wrong emotions as defined by Satan and to destroy the manifestation of that emotion in order to protect Satan. This is not overcoming. This is utter succumbing.
David is right to distinguish between prevention and preemption as military doctrine. Preemption under the law means to strike before an inevitable strike by the other side. Prevention calculates "inevitable" to include every being that exists. Given enough time, everyone will kill everyone, so to speak. Again, this is not overcoming. The souls who cave into such analysis are utterly untrustworthy and should not be followed anywhere. They are insane: Not knowing the difference between right and wrong, truth and falsehood in the divine.
Their policy boils down to hit them because you can. It also says be sure you can and that they cannot hit back. This is the macrocosm of one-on-one torture insanity where someone ties up someone else and then inflicts pain and suffering just because it can be done. This is global, even cosmic, sadism. It is hell. Everyone who engages in it is demonic. This is the FOX show "24" being played out on the imperial scale. It is antichrist. Can you doubt it?
We must thank David for emphatically stating that the US Empire is now attacking just to expand. It has slowly done away with the need for pretext. Just look at the impunity so far of Bush regarding the lies he told to start the war against Iraq. Now look at the even more obvious lies being told about Iran. Soon, there will be no reasons given. There will just be expansion. Their motto is "takeover or die." Well, they will die. They are already dead of the spirit.
One of the ends David Griffin ties together concerns Philip Zelikow and the military-industrial-neocon complex and the 9-11 false-flag cover-up with the 9-11 Commission. Zelikow wrote the following in 1998:
If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.
The notion of the "watershed" is revealing. Bernays and the Carnegie Institute and others have all used the creation of war (fear and terror) to allow the kleptomaniacs to fool the people. They manipulate the masses via the media, including the history textbooks of course. They created the coup d'Ã©tat against John F. Kennedy, Sr., for instance. They installed a private central bank to rape the whole nation for instance. They do such things (start all the wars, etc.) all for their selfish, temporal, fleeting, ignorant, shortsighted gain. They fill their storehouses, and then they are taken in their iniquity and not into heaven. Thus says Jesus's message. I trust him, Jesus, not Bernays, not the neocons.
This same Zelikow, a Condi Rice protÃ©gÃ©, was put in charge, in the background, of the 9-11 Commission. He called the shots at the Commission. He was the neocon watchdog. They all fell into line with his dictates he passed on from above (the White House).
The 9-11 Commission didn't touch certain areas, because those areas would expose the inside job by the neocon liars ("noble" lying is their philosophy).
David Ray Griffin doesn't say it in his article but rather footnotes his other writings that the US military allowed al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to travel in a long convoy at night with its headlights on out of Afghanistan into Pakistan. Also, the US military flew al Qaeda out of Afghanistan to Pakistan in US military transport planes flying back and forth airlifting the "enemy" the "terrorists" to safety while the US sent the Northern Alliance on a wild goose chase into the mountains and caves of Tora Bora. 9-11 was an inside job. It was done by the secret military within the secret military. All the regular troops are dupes who should see the light, undergo revelation, and convert and be healed and saved in the end.
Griffin writes the following:
When the Bush administration came to power, however, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. This last chance occurred at a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001. Representatives of the Bush-Cheney administration, trying to persuade the Taliban to share power with US-friendly factions in a "unity government," reportedly gave the Taliban an ultimatum: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."113 [Griffin's footnote number] When the Taliban refused, the Americans reportedly said that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."
This concerns the oil pipeline planned to run through Afghanistan. The US couldn't attack Afghanistan by telling the American citizenry that their sons and daughters would have to die and kill for oil-industry (UNOCAL) polluting profits. It needed a pretext. It had it's plan all ready since it knew the Taliban wouldn't just accept US dictates.
We don't agree with David that Iraq was the focus of the plan. We say that Iraq is just a stepping stone in the long series of nations that consists of any nation that will not knuckle under to US Empire. It doesn't stop with Iran or Venezuela. It doesn't stop with Russia or China. It doesn't stop with Germany or France or the UK or the entire EU. It stops at nothing. "The universe or nothing" is their motto. Remember H. G. Wells.
It is good that David Ray Griffin ties the current policy back to Vietnam. Empire building has been going on since the beginning with some Europeans who settled what is now the US. There were those who came in peace, and there were those who came to conquer. Those who came to conquer are now themselves subject to the monied interests they left behind. Who will win out? Neither.
Those who came in peace will win out.
Griffin writes the following:
[The Neocon] propaganda campaign was enormously successful. Shortly before the war on Iraq was launched, the two key ideas in the campaign—-that Saddam Hussein had played a direct role in the attacks of 9/11 and that he was a threat because he had weapons of mass destruction—-were accepted by 70 percent of the American people.
How willfully gullible the people were. In their selfish desire for Empire, they went along as evil goats to the slaughter. Yes, the American people knew that there wasn't sufficient evidence. They allowed themselves to be taken in so they could have their lifestyle that under the current system depends upon stealing other people's oil.
There were plenty of voices saying that there was no evidence. Those voices were prophetic and ignored, as the prophets have always been ignored and attacked and murdered by Satan's minions. We knew Saddam and Osama were opposed to each other. Saddam was secular. Osama hides behind a mask of piety. (Saddam tried to find God before he was executed.) We knew that there was no evidence of WMD's or labs or anything else. It took the yellowcake forgery to tip the balance with the duped. We all saw that the only thing offered up at the UN were cartoons (computer graphics). They didn't have any hard evidence of anything. Yet, hundreds of thousands have died because of the hardness of everyone's heart.
Think about the following:
... the Commission [9-11 Commission] changed by about 45 minutes the time at which Vice President Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House, thereby indicating that he could not have been responsible, as evidence suggests, for allowing the strike on the Pentagon and ordering the downing of UA 93.
We weren't aware of this until Griffin's article. Thank you, David for sharing some truth with us all.
To say that 9/11 allowed the agenda of the neocons in general to be implemented does not imply that many or even any neocons outside the government were involved in the planning for, or even had advance knowledge of, the attacks of 9/11. About eight months after 9/11, for example, William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote pieces urging the Bush-Cheney administration to undertake an investigation to see if the attacks might have been prevented. Gary Dorrien, reporting that this call "earned a sharp rebuke from Cheney," adds that "the Bush administration had no intention of allowing an investigation on that subject."
Think about that! Kristol and Kagan were that unaware of what was going down. They think they are so smart, but they don't even realize how hypnotized they are. Cheney knows more of the story than anyone else does. He knows more about the details than does George W. Bush. Bush though knows better than anyone that they are all working for Satan. His knowing-roots go further back than do Cheney's.
No genuine investigation has been carried out to this day. If Congress would authorize such an investigation, the American people, I am convinced, would see that the grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney are even stronger than those that have been part of the public discussion thus far. They would also see that the reasons for opposing the war in Iraq are even stronger than those publicly discussed thus far, because it was from the start an imperialistic war based on a false-flag operation (as well as additional lies). They would even see that, although many critics of the administration have said that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, our attack on that country was no more legitimate.
At the outset of this article, we mentioned that we wonder where we would part company with David Ray Griffin. We find that he subscribes to process theology2 as formulated by Alfred North Whitehead. We agree that God acts in the mundane and the divine and that where each is clearly demarcated is an infinitely divisible distinction. This is a paradoxical trap for the uninitiated.
At the same time, God is a living single being who reveals God to us.
We agree with much of process theology but only in that it applies to the mundane. It is wrong about that which is not demonstrative through doubt (testing). It is wrong that there is no "supernatural" even though we say that God's power is quite "natural" to God. We also disagree that commerce is not coercive. It is coercive. Commerce is not Christian. Freely giving and sharing all as the inheritance of all that ought to be well cared for by all is Christian.
Also, God is the one who sends forth angels to harvest. This though is not done in the spirit of coercion but rather salvation of the righteous who are rising into the greater enlightenment of pacifism. It is the consequence of evil that evil is cut away and burned up. It is the absolute, whole truth against which all is measured relative to the highest heaven that is the perfection of God. Whitehead didn't believe in that absolute truth. Jesus though did, and so do we.
1 David Ray Griffin. "Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq." Information Clearing House. February 27, 2007. Link. (last accessed: Thursday, March 01, 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)