Tuesday, July 04, 2006:

Britons have never had such a low opinion of the leadership of the United States, a YouGov poll shows.

As Americans prepare to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence tomorrow, the poll found that only 12 per cent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.

Most Britons see America as a cruel, vulgar, arrogant society, riven by class and racism, crime-ridden, obsessed with money and led by an incompetent hypocrite.[4]

The observations are correct in general. The leadership is acting very cruelly.

The general culture is vulgar in the current sense meaning of the word. Thoughtfulness, consideration, politeness, manners, and good upbringing give way to people who act as if they are the only people on the planet. Many people don't consider how their loudness disturbs the peace, causes stress, brings on the feelings that if they are allowed to build, result in physical aggression. Many don't stop to think about it. Others do it on purpose, looking for a fight, a confrontation, to annoy, to get back at society in general.

The American culture above all instructs it people that Americans are worth more than any other people in the world. It is super patriotism. It is hyper nationalism. It masks the belief that only certain Americans are worth more, namely those who believe it, the super patriots. This masks further the belief that the rich are worth more, even the non-American rich are worth much more than the poor Americans. Considering that the US is the riches country on earth and controls the world economy to a large extent, makes the US government extremely arrogant.

The US became the riches by being the most competitive, meaning the greatest thieves.

As for classism, that's what America was founded upon. It is what America was built upon. It is what America is. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his work, Democracy in America , that Americans had a singularly unique way of being classist that negated the danger and damage of the caste system. He overstated the importance of the prohibition against the government establishing titles of nobility, such as king, prince, duke, marquise, earl, count, viscount, and baron. The aristocracy existed and still exists. It was a clever maneuver by the estate builders to not use titles that would remind the people of the oppressive, feudal system of old England. They still pump the under class, the commoners, full of the lie that there is no class struggle in America.

Worldly, unshared wealth is theft. The rich are thieves or living off the proceeds of theft. That wealth is used to control the thoughts of the people. It is used to convince the people that there has been no theft. It is used to anesthetize the people, put them to sleep, in a stupor.

All the people have to do is funnel everything into the system of sharing. Then the theft will have been undone peacefully. The thieves will have no more support system. The people will no longer be the sleepwalking pawns of master criminals and their court hypnotists.

Of course, racism is huge in America. However, there are sleep walking thieves of every ethnic background. Therefore, the color of the elite is changing. The real color of the elite is the color of money. It matters less and less what a person's ethnic background is the more the person has model himself or herself after the prince of this world. Tiptoe up the ladder. Ingratiate yourself to the prince. Anticipate the friendships that will boost you. Take care not to shine too soon or make enemies higher up. These are the ways to power in hell.

However, what they don't tell you is, positions never last in hell. The ruler in hell remains unseen spirit that even when it manifests (reflects itself in the flesh) will undercut and devour its own manifestation. That spirit cannot bring forth a unified house. Every house it raises up falls. It can't build for the sake of others. It can't serve. This is where the saying comes from. "It is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." It is antichrist.

God puts God last. God serves. That's why God is first. God shares all. That's why everything belongs to God. This spirit is the spirit in which all will unify. That house will be brought forth and will not fall. That house is for the sake of others. All in it will serve as last and be, therefore, first as one.

The US is "led by an incompetent hypocrite." Well, that's the message of Jesus about the history of civilization.

Now, what about turning that spotlight back upon yourselves in England. It is one thing to speak these things about the US. It is another to not be hypocritical when pointing out hypocrisy.

Why don't the government in the UK reflect all the opposite of these characteristics the people there have identified about the US?

Is the UK bringing forth a real Christian nation? Their empire was taken from them and given to the United States. The US isn't bring forth, so it too will lose supremacy. The Chinese and Indians are not on the narrow way either; therefore, whatever they raise up will fall.

The British are actually leading the way in the open into Big Brother. The British, above all other nations, is actually convincing itself to head in that direction. The solution isn't to help people to govern themselves from within, by conscience. It is to apply sanctions to coerce from without. It is not Christian.

The British government are headed in the direction of psychological profiling and mandatory preemption within families. This is social engineering that will preclude the Christian message if not handled correctly and will lead to pattern recognition to the nthdegree. The computer networking of individuals would become so collectivized that the result would be dehumanization going down. Spiritual enlightenment would never result. Artificiality would preclude transcendence. It would stifle beyond escape.

Social exclusion

Anti-social behavior, does that include what Jesus said to the Pharisees or what the Pharisees said to Jesus Christ or both? Is Tony Blair's view of what is right really superior to that of Christ? Would Jesus be arrested by the twenty-first century London bobbies for making politically incorrect public statements?

So what if homosexuals are offended by being told that their lifestyle is offensive. Different people find different things offensive. Silence in the face of iniquity offends me.

Tony Blair is not my God. Tony Blair is not my conscience. His standards are not mine. His are much too low. His standard allows massive weapons sales around the world and illegal invasions, mass murder, in sucking up to the empire. I want none of it.

He thinks men sodomizing each other is acceptable. We know it's insane. We know it's misleading for the youth. Penises and male alimentary canals are not to come into contact, pure and simple. It's confusion, deep-seated confusion, spiritual confusion.

Now, the homosexuals are calling upon the power of the state to use coercive means to silence their opposition. That's not what the real Christianity do toward the homosexuals. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Homosexuals were once forced to be in the closet. Now they want to force others into the closet, and Tony Blair and his kind are doing everything they can to help in that.

Equality Act 2006

Homosexual adoption of children

Britain has its Equality Act 2006 that is going into effect February 28, 2007. It supposedly bans discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation. That Act, as it stands, even requires organizations operating under the name of Jesus Christ to place children for adoption with homosexuals while homosexuality is against the sexual and transformative-spirit teachings of Jesus. The Act is designed to prevent discrimination, but it discriminates against real Christianity.

No real Christian could place a child or children with homosexuals as adoptive parents.

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer told the BBC Tuesday he did not wish to see Catholic churches close their adoption agencies, but argued that if society disapproves of discrimination against homosexuals, "you cannot give exclusions to people on the grounds that their religion or their race says, 'We don't agree with that.'"[5]

John Reid, the Home Secretary, who is a Catholic, said the principles of equality in the new law must not be undermined. "If you bring in a law that says all people will be treated equally, all people will be treated equally," he said. "I don't think people have a right to overrule fundamental principles on which the country is based because of their conscientious values."[6]

Conscientious values don't matter in England. Well, then, how long will England matter?

What that says is that if society disapproves of discrimination against homosexuals, you cannot have freedom of religion. So sexual iniquity trumps freedom of religion in England. Lord Falconer and John Reid hate Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit. They hate the truth: The real peace and real love. They're for killing Christianity. They seek to choke the life out of the spirit of Jesus so that self-centeredness, confusion, and hypocrisy may reign.

Conscience clause

It says that if you bring in a law that says all people will stone the Christians, all the people will stone the Christians or else themselves be stoned. Where is the conscience clause? They don't have one in England. It's becoming a scientific dictatorship.

The "intellectual elite and world bankers" are decreeing these changes. The people are being brainwashed through the undemocratic media that is controlled by the elitists. They are telling you what you may say and think. They are telling you that you may not say or think that homosexuality is immoral.

It might hurt the feelings of the sodomites who are so fragile and have been so abused and oppressed. Now they must be allowed to have all the anal sex with each other they want. Now it isn't unhealthy but rather "normal." Well, yes, it's become usual and common place. It was that in Sodom too. So, London is turning into Sodom, as New York and San Francisco and the rest of both countries and the whole of Europe.

What's going on? The feelings of the real, liberal Christian don't matter to these people. That's why heaven isn't coming but rather hell. Watch and see.

It is cause and effect, consequences. The harvest will be what Tony Blair and the other antichrists have sown.

The homosexuals must not be warned, but Blair and his fellow warmongers can wipe out innocent children because those children aren't close enough relatives of all these fragile, militaristic sodomites.

Understand that greed, violence, and sexual iniquity are inextricable for the future of humanity. To get rid of one, the others must also go.

Political correctness and hate-speech laws have been carried into censoring that which ought not be censored but rather embraced wholeheartedly. To curtail violence against homosexuals, the state is still employing coercion against the prophets. The state is still threatening the prophets with isolation, ostracism, fines, imprisonment, and a future of torture and execution. The homosexuals are out to do to others what was done to them. This is why they are both false conservatives and false liberals. They are false.

Anus isn't for penises

The anus isn't for penises. It's for defecating only. Humanity has been, and is being, tricked and harmed by the falsehood that the anus is for the penis. A penis has no business being up an anus! Look at the physical damage. Look at the diseases. So-called safe sex doesn't prevent the damage. It doesn't prevent every one of the resulting diseases and physical complications.

Look at the need to practice this so-called safe sex in multi-partner heterosexual life. If people wouldn't be promiscuous and would practice anal intercourse but rather stick with their one heterosexual mate until the death of the flesh, there would be no sexual diseases, no greed, and no violence.

Homosexuality is harmful. The world, the remnant, will see that clearly and plainly and will steer clear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, words, and actions (behaving homosexually). It is a disease state, no matter what anyone else says. Denying this prevents great potential for healing of all sorts of confusion.

Are we advocating for shunning everyone with a disease? No. We are advocating for everyone who is diseased, which is the state of even vestiges of selfishness, to admit that condition within and to not only struggle against it but to overcome it through the power of God's love.

The government of Britain are coercively forcing Sodom into existence. The only thing that is holding back complete and utter destruction are those in Britain who are righteous and know that homosexual behavior is iniquitous and an abomination before the LORD. That there are such righteous people, however, will not spare Britain.

It won't stand.

Overcome. That's the message of real Christianity. Spirit over matter is the message. It may be trying, but that's the point.

Bring forth real Christianity. It is the one and only way.

This isn't a debate over material or feel-good statistics. It is an issue of righteousness versus iniquity and whether it is iniquitous for people of the same sex to engage in sex with each other, whether it is a willful violation of creation and the Creator for men to be putting their penises up each others rectums, etc. It isn't healthy. It isn't healthy for children to be placed with such people no matter how materially well off those homosexuals. The vast majority of the children will end up engaging in homosexuality. All things running contrary to perfection will be, thereby, magnified. It's wrong.

Now, heterosexual, married couples saying they are Christians who are opposed to homosexuality are being denied the right to adopt children in the UK.[7]

Blair and company also want to give the police increasing summary powers. They want to do away with trial by one's peers—do away with jury trials as much as possible.[8] They want police cautions to have the same force of law as a conviction in a duly constituted court of law with a proper jury. They want to do away with habeas corpus as much as possible if not completely. They want to hold people as long as possible without charging them or bringing them to trial with full due process rights. They want to do away with protest and dissent.

People continue to say that they have nothing to hide. Which human being's standard will be the final standard against which everyone else's behavior, words, thoughts, and even feelings shall be weighed?

It isn't that everyone wants to be able to continue sinning. It's that people are concerned about the potential for governmental abuse of power with all the data and surveillance.

Real Christians don't want all that data on others. They aren't afraid of the government either. They are simply saying to the governments that they, the governments, don't need it and shouldn't want it either. It's not the way to heaven on earth. It's the path to greater hell.


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 Sup1 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.