CHAPTER 2: CHRISTIAN CONSERVATISM: THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CONFUSION: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN: JESUS IS A SMALL-C COMMUNIST

. . . make us more cognizant of what goes on at the subconscious level, making us more conscious of it, and also making us better able to see what is truly conscious. After all, compare to Jesus, the unrepentant Pharisees were always sleep-walking at best.

So, how much of the behavioral pattern of individual conservative Republicans and all others is clear to them to be in the stream of evil and how much of the behavior of family members is the responsibility of other members, hence showing an evil spirit running through that family, is all measurable against the words and deeds of Jesus Christ.

Does evil run in families? Of course it does. Can an individual family member breakout of that stream? Of course he or she can. Can an entire family turn? Yes. The issue is have they, will they, and to stay. The intention of offspring certainly can improve and return to God. If not for that, we would all be doomed.

The remnant of America will have turned

Can the nation of America turn and repent? Will it adopt the new wineskin and the new wine, the spirit necessitating doing away with capitalism all voluntarily without coercing anyone who doesn't wish to turn from faith in mammon to faith in God, giving and sharing all as did the first Apostles of Christ? The remnant of America will have done just that.

American duplicity in the Iraq-Iran War

The US knew full well that Iraq was gassing the Iranians but turned a blind eye as the US gave Iraq military intelligence and more against Iran. The US must repent of that. The US sent Saddam Hussein all sorts of mixed signals. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. The US had also armed Iran. America must repent of that and all the other selfish, evil deeds it has done.

Billions of dollars were made by corporations throughout the process of war-profiteering in a war that cost over a million lives. Many of those corporations had extremely close ties to the conservative-Republican administrations and their officials. They are far from the kingdom.

All of this was covered up by the administrations. Government investigations were superficial at best. The neoliberals of the Democratic Leadership Council turned a blind eye.

In addition, George W. Bush wanted control of Iraq's oil for the sake of ego, for the sake of building up the Empire per the Paul Wolfowitz Doctrine of controlling the resources that any other would-be rival empires might need. George W. Bush also wanted to out do his father.

That aspect has more to do with his personality and choices than any single thing. Out doing his father even plays a role in the dismantling of the CIA. His father had been director of the CIA. If the CIA is brought historically lower, George rises relative to his father.

Don't misconstrue this as a statement in favor of the CIA. We are not in favor of the CIA or any of the intelligence agencies anywhere in the world. We firmly know that all of them are heading in the wrong direction. Secrets, material barriers, and borders are illusory.

His father was the US ambassador to the UN. George W. seeks to further weaken the UN. His father is close to the Arabs and backed down the Israel Lobby. George W. cozies up to Israel and the neocon, false Zionists. His father was for balance of power and containment. George W. intentionally destabilizes. His father is an Episcopalian. George W. is a Deep South, conservative, evangelical, dominionist/Recon-structionist. His father was ambassador to China. George W. seeks to check the Chinese in a huge way.

George W. Bush wants to go down in history as the president who more than any other president took the gloves off to greatly increase the Empire. He's outdoing James Polk and Teddy Roosevelt.

George W. Bush doesn't know, because he's spiritually dead

It is telling that when Bob Woodward was interviewing him in 2003 for Woodward's book, Plan of Attack,[62] about Bush-43's Iraq-war plan, Woodward asked Bush how history would judge the Iraq War. Bush replied with a smile, "History, we won't know. We'll all be dead." The reason this is telling is because it is totally unchristian. Christians won't be dead. They will know how history turns out. They will know how they measured up to the truth in this life. Bush's unchristian view was public information during the 2004 presidential election, yet the so-call Christian-right turned out for Bush as one of their own. What does that tell you about those calling themselves conservative-Republican Christians?

It is also telling that in the presidential debates with John Kerry, Bush was asked whether he thought that homosexuality is a choice, meaning is homosexually genetically predetermined. Bush answered, "I don't know." His position on life after death and on the power of the spirit to change any behavior should have informed true believers that George W. Bush doesn't have the message of Christ written on his heart. The conservative-Republican Christians were taken in by a fraud for the sake of the Electoral College. It is the spiritually blind leading the spiritually blind.

They also don't care that the United States Electoral College gives each state a number of electors to choose the president and vice president equal to its total number of US senators and House members. This give states with lower populations a disproportionate voice in selecting the president. The original idea was to keep the centers of population from gaining too much power over the more rural states.

Check and balance the inherent evil in the nation. That isn't having the law of God written on one's heart.

False Christians often live in what are referred to as the exurbs in more rural states, thereby giving those false Christians a compounded disproportionate voice in selecting the president and US senators for that matter.

The exurbs are usually beyond the bedroom communities surrounding urban areas of various sizes. Today, many of the false Christians live and work in the exurbs so they can better control their family's exposure to the evils of the city and can spread out to have some distance between families. They also can control the local politics. They take their news and cues more from the Empire than does any other segment of the population. They are taught not to question authority. This is very convenient for the authority of Satan.

George W. Bush knew that the conservative evangelicals have been steeped in the notion that uniting the nations around the cause of peaceful settlement of disputes is something else. They been taught that country is first, right or wrong. Therefore, George W. saw it as a great waste of time to try to convince the UN to go along with the US invasion of Baghdad. Nevertheless, he figured what's the harm in gaming the UN some.

Gaming the UN

Colin Powell and others wanted cover. They insisted that it was necessary that the administration create the impression through the UN that Bush had exhausted peaceful international legal recourse considering the imminent threat Saddam was painted as being. We all knew at the time that Bush had wanted to just go straight to invasion even before issuing Saddam Hussein any ultimatums. All of that was in the mainstream US news. We knew that the British were completely aware of that and that they were explaining to Bush that the rest of the world would be left with too much ammunition against the Bush-43 administration and the Blair government were Bush not to game the UN system. There is the sin of the Blair government.

Blair government: American, European, or both?

Tony Blair and his closest confidants knew full well exactly what is contained within the Downing Street Memo. They can't deny it. It's their memo. Rather than being honest at the time, they plied Bush to create a smoke screen. They did everything they could to smooth out the appearance of the reckless Bush who was blatantly ignoring political risks in every dimension. Bush simply saw their caution as weakness. They were afraid to act the gunslinger, too afraid to employ the big stick.

Blair and his government wanted to further the Anglo-American Empire. They saw in Bush's plan the opportunity to gain a great coattail effect over the entire Middle East.

Even though Blair and company want nothing more than to further the Anglo-American Empire they didn't want to burn their European and UN bridges, as Bush and John Bolton and other neocons are panting to do. They really want slowly to drag the whole of the European Union in under the Anglo-American Empire. They plan to do that via widening, but not deepening the integration of, the European Union. That way, the US would have the greatest opportunity of playing power politics with Europe and favoring the Anglo-Saxons of the UK. Therefore, the Blair government selfishly manipulated the situation burning the candle at both ends but leaning way toward Bush.

The flame came too close for comfort. Blair and his ministers have cooked their own goose (ruined their golden opportunity). Of course, they couldn't do anything else. Their hearts were not in the right place. They didn't have what it takes to say openly to the world that the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy, as so many other honest appraisers were saying at the time.

Anglo-American Empire

Now, you may doubt that the British have such high designs as this Anglo-American Empire. You must understand that it wasn't that long ago that the British Empire was the global Empire. It was the first empire with a truly global reach. At its height, the sun never set on the British Empire. Some twenty-five percent of the world's population and a third of its land was under British imperial and colonial control. They miss having that kind of power. They can get a sense of it back vicariously through an extremely close alliance with the US, their offspring.

Jack Straw said, "We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." Listen to that. "Help with the legal justification." Now, despite this, Saddam did in fact allow the UN weapons inspectors back in. The inspectors found nothing. Where was the legal justification in that case? Jack Straw cannot possibly be so stupid as to have been thinking anything but two things when he said that. Saddam would refused to allow inspectors back in or the inspectors would find something. There is no way that he, Straw, could have been worried about justification but have seen it as being mundanely legal to go to war without evidence of either a refusal or actual weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair made part of this point by saying, "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors." He said he knew that they had to have "the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work." Listen to that: "Political strategy." It means pretext. The British Defense Secretary understood this, because he said, "It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush." It is obvious that they all understood each others' thinking and were all driving at the same thing, namely to convince Bush to create a smoke screen or pretext for invasion.

They knew too that it would be mundanely illegal to attack Saddam if he allowed the inspectors back in and they found nothing, which happened.

In the memos Conclusions section, it says under point "(f)" that "We must not ignore the legal issues." Think of that. Within the context of the whole memo, it means they had to remind themselves how things would appear from a legal standpoint. It speaks to the recklessness and lawlessness of George W. Bush's administration. It speaks to the potential for the Blair government to go ahead with actions without a real mundanely legal basis. It speaks to the fact that the Blair government was going about creating the semblance of legality for invasion.

It is telling that the memo does not address any terrorist linkages between Iraq and any known terrorist groups despite the language that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." The British government focused solely upon weapons of mass destruction. Even in that, it acknowledged that Iraq was behind Libya, North Korea, and Iran in weapons of mass destruction development. Invasion for regime change was okay concerning Iraq, but according to the prime minister, Tony Blair, "There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran."

Well, Libya has decided to open up for capitalist profits and rather than face military action.

The build-up to the US bombing of Iran

Iran is in the middle of having to defend itself against a negative just as was Saddam Hussein. They are being called upon by the neoconservatives in the US administration to prove they aren't working to build atom bombs. Now, how does a nation-state prove it isn't building an atom bomb? The burden of proof is on the accuser in any just society.

It is the burden of the US to show the American people and the world reasonable evidence for probable cause in even suspecting the Iranians of working on nuclear weapons development. This is not to say that the Iranians have not undertaken such efforts. It is, however, to say that the American people would be fools to allow themselves to be knowingly duped yet again. On the heels of the fraudulent US invasion of Baghdad, Iraq, they would be condemning themselves.

They could not plead ignorance to God and expect to receive no stripes. All offenses would be licensed in such a kingdom. That is not God's kingdom. Knowing this, all Christians are set against war in every case. They cannot feign ignorance.

George W. Bush labeled Iran one of the nations in his Axis of Evil. According to George W. Bush and his speech writers, this Axis of Evil consisted of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and their supposed allies in terror. Bush claimed that the named countries were pursuing weapons of mass destruction that threaten the Empire and its more or less vassal states.

We have seen, though, that neoconservative charges against Iraq were never substantiated but were actually fraudulently devised by the neocons as a pretext for, among other things, stealing control of the oil under Iraq.

Now the American people are again being asked to accept unsubstantiated claims for reasons to ratchet up the saber rattling against Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Belarus, Myanmar (Burma), Zimbabwe, Somalia, and any other much smaller and much weaker nation that may impede the Empire's ability to feed its insatiable greed.

The neocon plan is to saturate the world with unsubstantiated allegations against these nations and dictate to the world the actions that will be taken until those nations and others are intimidated, threatened, and isolated into cowed submission or they are forced to knuckle under via brute military force. The neocon method, as we have plainly seen with Iraq, is to bait and switch. They will sell the American people and much of the willing world on lies and mingle in half-truths for effect. Then they will later claim justification, despite the lies, for having rid the world of tyrannies. These neocon methods are not the way to peace and never will be.

Theirs is actually a tyranny of lies on the path to war and the abomination of desolation. Their prayers for war are worse to God then sacrificing pigs on his altar, as the usurper, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, did in Jerusalem. Pigs represent wallowing in their own excrement in selfishness.

Of course, the history of Persia (Iran) goes way back. Certainly, the conservative (churlish), fundamentalist (letter-only versus the spirit and letter) Muslims, who control the minds and hearts of much of the Iranian population, are mistaken in following Mohammed. However, the Americans and Israelites are exceedingly wrong to be following their wholly unchristian agenda.

Now, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is upset at the treatment of the people in Palestine. He is engaged in debating who constitutes the indigenous peoples of the area. The people who are called today "Palestinians" maintain that the people called today "Hebrews" were never in the area to the extent they claim. This is a disingenuous position considering that Mohammed acknowledged the People of the Book, meaning the Jews of The Bible. Mohammed tried to turn some of The Bible on its head by, among other ploys, switching Ishmael for Isaac; however, the Qur'an does not deny wholesale the historical population of Hebrews in the area.

Many Hebrews maintain that the Palestinians were far from a large population in the area until after the Hebrews began moving back into the area during the twentieth century and creating commerce on a larger scale. This of course is a relative term and the argument suggests that it is okay to steal even one person's land or home. Sharing is one thing. Taking is another. The Palestinians were evicted even as many fled. The population of the whole world has gone up just as the Palestinian population has increased.

US aid to Israel

In addition, this somehow suggests that the Hebrews are superior beings since they were more commercially successful. Well, correct me if I'm wrong but I have been given to understand that the state of Israel has received more money per capita from the US than any place else in the world. The aid amounts to over one hundred billion US dollars since 1949. That's a lot of money when one figures the population of Israel at about now seven million. That doesn't include adjustments for inflation, which makes the value of the aid considerably higher. It doesn't include the loans to Israel that are routinely forgiven by the US government. It doesn't include the military hardware that is loaned to Israel. It doesn't include Pentagon contracts that are steered toward Israeli contractors. It doesn't include the aid beneficiaries in other countries being steered by the US government to receive US aid through Israeli contractors who obviously benefit by the arrangement. It doesn't include the interest Israel has charged the US on late US aid payments to Israel. It is also my understanding that much of the military aid money must be spent on US technology, so the US is getting back some of the funding in a manner that reinforces the US military-industrial complex and power elite that includes many supporters of Israel, many who contribute money to pro-Israeli PAC's (political action committees) that in turn contribute campaign funds to Israeli supporters in Congress, etc. So it is a big circle of mutual benefactors and beneficiaries—a cozy relationship of capitalists and empire builders.

I'm not against foreign aid, but there are people in the world who are far, far worse off than the Israelis. Those people are barely getting a penny a day if that. A very low estimate is $2,560,000,000 ÷ 7,000,000 people = $365.7+ per person for Israel. That's a dollar per day while billions on earth live on less than a dollar per day. The actual dollar figure is close to double that above, since Israel really gets about five to six billion a year. Of course, that amount doesn't include the private funds that flow to Israel from wealthy Jews and others in the US. Israel has been receiving about one-fifth of all US foreign aid even though Israel as a nation would be far from destitute without it. Why have they in particular been chosen by the US power elite to receive so much more aid than anyone else? Also, everyone else who receives aid has to account to the US for how it is used. Israel doesn't.

Is it religion? Is it geopolitics? Is it a capitalist beachhead? Is it a forward military pawn? Is it lobbying and political contributions by the wealthy in the US? Is it a guilty conscience for bigotry of the past? Is it pity over the Nazi death camps? Is it governmental insiders making policy and putting that policy into practice? Is it all of the above? The reason isn't love. What about the other people in the world?

The real word of God hasn't been given to them. It is wrong to shake the dust from one's feet before attempting peace.

Giving is great, but it really should be spread around so that the neediest on earth are cared for first and foremost. That would end all the hostility anyway. That would reduce all the military threats on all sides of the Palestinian-Israeli, Arab-Israeli, and Islamic-Jewish (US) conflict.

International law and the Palestinian Occupied Territories

In addition, according to international law (even if one allows for the violent re-creation of Israel after nearly two thousand years), Israel has no legal right to 1) any of the Occupied Territories 2) any of the so-called Jewish settlements within any of the Occupied Territories 3) any of the city of Jerusalem or 4) to keep any Palestinian from returning to Israel who was displaced by war. That's the mundane law to which Israel is signatory.

We know that the Israelis in general have been horrendously evil neighbors. Israel had legalized torture from 1987 to 1999. It admittedly tortured countless Palestinians. It demolished countless homes of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. There is repenting and atoning to do on a national scale. It won't happen without a real Christian conversion of the nation. They will be told. Woe to all those who ignore it.

This is not to say that other nations are not built upon lands taken from others. The history of the planet is full of that. The histories of the United Kingdom and United States are full of that. At the same time, that is no excuse for current Israel. Sharing should have always been the way. That it isn't yet the way is evil. That they aren't working toward that is evil. That there are those within Israel and the US who think that God wants the Israelis to shove others off the land is wrong. It isn't merciful at all. God hates it. Many are going to learn that the hard way.

Rather than giving, sharing, and loving one's neighbor, we see the ridiculous argument over whether or not UN Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw from all the territory occupied during the 1967 War or just some of the territory. If it isn't all, then they could withdraw from just one square inch and call the condition satisfied.

This is the same semantical slight of hand used in ...continues... Click next page number below.

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.