Friday, August 11, 2006:

First, the timing of announcements of foiled terrorist attacks is now always considered politically suspect by a much wider population than several years ago. The government of the US is just not trustworthy, and everyone knows it. The general population never knows what information being given out is true. We have seen the government claim to have thwarted plots that further investigation proves were highly exaggerated and sometimes made up, imagined, wholesale. We have seen the government busy using entrapment techniques as well. No announcement are made without being put through the political filter.

No doubt, what with the stirring up of trouble by the US amongst Muslims, there will be further violence. The neocons want it that way. However, who can trustpathological liars?

Elections are upcoming in November, 2006, as I write this in. The neocons want fear in the hearts and minds of the voters. They don't want the voters thinking about peacemaking. It also helps in the minds of some to support what Israel has done in Lebanon over these last several weeks. What an evil mentality, warmongering.

Psy-ops on travelers

Also, the US government is so concerned about not helping terrorists to adapt, why then is it telling the world how easy it is to make and use liquid explosives? To generate fear is the answer so that people will go along as a herd of goats with whatever the government wants them to believe.

You shall know them by their fruit. Their fruit is war, death, desolation, and severe long-term mundane environmental damage. It is abominable. Who then are they?

This is the case of the boy who cried wolf. We have the 9-11 attacks, the attacks that preceded it including on the World Trade Center, the Madrid train bombings, the London subway or tube bombings, and recently, the Mumbai (Bombay) train bombings. We have the on-going imperialism of the US and other nations. There is real violence and real mundane threats. However, there are many more reports of thwarted attacks that are false then accurate. The impression left in people's minds by those false reports though is that many real threats were averted. That is, because the false reports rarely receive the wide condemnation they deserve. It's knowingly bearing false witness, a clear sin.

There are real bogeymen. They are created by causes. One cause is the kind of imperialism engaged in by the US. Many other nations engage in that same form of imperialism albeit on a lesser scale. The US has only followed suit in the long line of dominant imperial powers down through history leading back to the first time Mesopotamia and Egypt ventured out to conquer. The point is that you don't get rid of bogeymen by killing everyone who disagrees with you. You stop being the main source for the grievances around the world and rather become the main source for fairly addressing those grievances.

The real answer is to give and share. However, according to a Center for Global Development (CGD) report as interpreted by the BBC, "despite the US giving the largest amount of aid that donation was the smallest in relation to the size of its economy. The CGD added that a lot of the money was also contingent on the purchase of US goods, and so was in fact a 'backdoor subsidy for American interests'."[73]

Tuesday, August 15, 2006:

As I mentioned above, the timing of announcements of foiled terrorist attacks is now always considered politically suspect by a much wider population. That has now been born out in the alternative media and has reached the mainstream to some degree. Many people have expressed that they automatically take all announcements with a grain or block of salt. They acknowledge the real attacks that have occurred, but they remember the many more alleged plots that turned out to be conjuring by the so-called US leadership.

Now, it has come out that the US was pushing the UK to make the arrests of a number of people whom the US had announced were going to attempt to bring down some ten airliners headed from England to the America. It has also come out that the attack was far from imminent. A number of the alleged plotters didn't have airline tickets and some didn't even have passports. It doesn't mean that the group whether dwindled or not wouldn't have attempted the plan at some point. It does mean that the US was looking at the political timing of the announcement, which points to the untrustworthiness of the timing and motives of the US government. It isn't that they are timing things for the sake of the people. They are timing things for their own sakes.

Friday, August 11, 2006:

Second, Condi Rice is involved in playing better cop to the terrible cop of the worst neocons. She is being handled politically. If she goes along, they will run her for president. She won't win, but they'll let her work the primaries.

Third, there are many people clamoring for the US to speed up high-tech development of security across-the-board. They are saying it is a "failure of imagination."

We wrote about that much earlier. The militarists want to imagine everything possible, put the fear in everyone possible, then spend huge sums of money and energy, etc., trying to counter what they "imagine." Well, that's just plain stupid.

The right thing to do is address all the grievances around the world getting the contesting parties to resolve their differences to come to the realization that the golden rule is always best. Everything else is shameful.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006:

Thousands continue to be murdered in Iraq every month. Other places in the world are severely neglected. Billions of dollars go missing—war-profiteering and racketeering while millions of children go to bed hungry every night and tens of thousands don't make it another twenty-four hours.

US generals, current and former, complain that what is needed is more money and more troops. People become more determined to take revenge. Clandestine operatives stir up trouble around the world.

However, many other generals in the world, US allies, are saying that the Iraq war has made things worse, which it has, of course. Australia former defense chief, Peter Cosgrove, is backing Britain's army chief, Richard Dannatt. Both are saying that troops should get out soon. The vast majority of the British people agree.

Just look at North Korea. It has stepped up it's militancy as a direct result of the Iraq war and Bush-43's verbal assaults on North Korea ("Axis of Evil"). It developed and tested a nuclear weapon.

Many other nations are stepping up their efforts so they may have a similar deterrent. Many nation fear being left as vulnerable as Iraq was against the US onslaught that began in March, 2003.


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 Sup2 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.