Thursday, September 21, 2006:

Hugo Chavez actually has them biting their nails. Chavez is the least cowed political leader I have ever seen. He is defiant of the Empire as no other non-super nation leader has ever been. In fact, he is making little Venezuela a real world power. He is further emboldened, because he is not alone.

Hugo is absolutely right to be calling the US on its bullying around the world. It just came out that Pakistan has alleged that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage threatened Pakistan that the US would bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" if Pakistan wouldn't support the US after 9-11.[210] The articles cited in the footnote suggests that it may be a self-serving lie by Pervez Musharraf to be releasing this allegation.

With all the bluster and saber rattling right after 9-11 and that is still going on to this day and what with George W. Bush's you're either with us or against us statement and with all the arm twisting that went on to form any appearance of a coalition (of the so-called willing) to go into Iraq, one must take any US counter with more than a grain of salt. One must also consider the source who is Pervez Musharraf, not a duly elected leader but a military dictator backed by the US.

Hugo is right to be pointing out the double-standards of the US in that the US is harboring terrorists and assassins while the US is complaining about terrorists in other nations.

It is nothing short of the Holy Spirit moving things so that someone would stand before the United Nations to say that the prince of the world, identified by Jesus as Satan's instrument controlling this earth, is the president of the United States when that president worships unbridled capitalism, a manifestation of the religion of greed, and undertakes all the other actions attempting world dictatorship. This does not excuse anyone anywhere who doesn't repent in earnest.

Hugo is exceedingly syncretic-down. The enemy of his enemy is his friend. That won't stand up any better than the Empire. We cannot compromise for the sake of popularity. Inclusion cannot come at the expense of the truth that Jesus Christ alone showed the necessary kind and degree of love through God and called upon his fellow human beings to do the right thing that is feed the lambs and sheep. What other religious founder made that a duty of human kind? None. He's the one.

Hugo may change upon hearing criticisms. That's proper when criticisms show error. We each must stand corrected. God corrects us. Our consciences connected to God, feeling God's direction, are to correct us. However, as of this day, Saturday, September 23, 2006, in all that I have read and heard from Hugo and about him, and I have looked, Hugo has never said one thing against the evils of other than the Anglo-American Empire, as if there is no evil, no self-centeredness, in anything but that Empire.

Hugo gets along with everyone but the archconservatives of the United States and now Israel over Lebanon and Palestine. He is taking a live-and-let-live approach and simply attacks the neocons of the US and Israel for as he sees it standing against that approach. This method is the heart and soul of remaining silent concerning the misdirection of the various religions and ideologies of the world. It is silence that is darkness. It is silence that watches souls disappear to death and corruption. The souls go with the flesh into death rather than on to real life that comes of right feelings and actions during this phase of being.

His is the opposite end of the false spectrum. The choice of the real path is not either the way of George W. Bush or the way of Hugo Chavez. Neither of those paths is the real way. The real way is not the way of the neocons, but it is also not the way of syncretism-down.

Hinduism brought the caste system, clearly selfish on the part of those born into circumstances that their characters showed were not reward for past righteousness.

Buddha brought the ultimate self will. There are so-called disciples who have deviated from Buddha's teachings, but that doesn't change the fact that Buddha considered himself the most enlightened being in existence, without equal, without any feeling of any need to credit any other being. This is just another form of ultimate ego.

Mohammed made no attempts to be as subtle or sublime. He flat out said kill rather then standing with Jesus even as he claimed Jesus was a real prophet of God. All of these and the Chinese and other religions reject the prophetic fulfillment of Jesus and his miracles. To accept them would be to reject Jesus's as the one and only path, the narrow path.

Jesus's path says, among many other things, give up the caste, give up the self-centeredness, give up the killing. People who come from bloodlines have a false need to uphold the false teachings and direction of their ancestors. They find self-esteem in it. They claim it is necessary for their self-respect and that others should grant them that. It is as saying that people cannot change. Well, what about all the child sacrificing that went on all over the world in ancient so-called civilizations? If that can be cast off as wrong, if the gods who called upon ancestors to engage in such practices can be said to have been false (unrighteous), then why can't people change to the new commandment? It is because they refuse to let go of the last vestiges of false pride.

We reiterate that Jesus is right, because Jesus never coerces. The only exception is the parent restraining the child from harming others. Once the person is of age, that one is responsible for choosing without restraint. Then, the truth sorts everyone out.

If you go the other way, if you go for coercion, where's the line? When do you stop? You stop at total control and zero free choice or free will even to do what would be better. The absolute ruler would not allow for anything better than he or she could see. God doesn't operate that way. God says be as good as you can.

We are not saying that Hugo Chavez is a real, liberal Christian, but if he could let go of his militarism, he could become one. We know though that the moment he does, the neocons will kill him. He'd be a martyr for Christ.

The Pentagon has teams everywhere operating under cover. Where there is unrest, the Pentagon is there doing anything it wants to undermine anything that threatens the Empire, the oligarchy's, drive for global control. The Pentagon is inside Venezuela. They are targeting Chavez. They are setting up in South America, especially in Paraguay. The Southern Command is doing what the CIA used to do only with the plan to be much more aggressive. It's going to be very violent if the Republicans have another neocon president follow directly after Bush-43. They will have to steal another election to do it.

They may stage a major false-flag operation for a pretext for clamping down as with martial law in all but name. They are desperate behind their cool exterior. The false Zionists, just one step back and not quite behind the scenes, are champing at the bit. They are ready to take huge risks with hugely destructive consequences.

The United States is the Roman Empire. The president has become the closest thing to caesar the world has seen since the last united Roman Empire's caesar, Constantine I. Many American people are on the edge of declaring the president the official dictator. The next step would be dictator for life, then emperor, monarch, demigod, and finally sole god replacing God. George W. Bush won't be the one.

The critics of Hugo Chavez in the US don't shine the same light on their man, George W. Bush. It was Bush who started the whole trend by using the expression of "Axis of Evil." It was reminiscent of Reagan's expression "Evil Empire" as pointed toward the Soviet Union. Well, evil is all over the place and certainly in the US and Washington and the White House. It's also in Venezuela. Wouldn't Hugo Chavez admit to being a sinner?

John Bolton knowingly lies

What hasn't happened is for all the people characterizing Chavez as a ruthless, violent, dictator to show one trace of evidence. People such as John Bolton say Chavez doesn't allow freedom of speech in Venezuela. Bolton said the following:

The real issue here is he knows he can exercise freedom of speech on that podium and, as I say, he could exercise it in Central Park, too. He's not giving the same freedom to the people of Venezuela.

That's a flat out lie, and John Bolton knows it full well. Bolton is paid to lie, and he doesn't mind it one bit.

Others say that if someone were to speak out against Chavez in Venezuela that they'd get a bullet.[211] That's a lie too.

People in Venezuela have more freedom of speech than they do in the US right now. They aren't herded into little areas far from the action so that the media doesn't have to face them. The media too are free to criticize Chavez all they want. They do too. Also, Venezuela isn't running what should be private electronic communications through supercomputers flagging words the list of which no one outside Bush's circle knows.

Bush said "bring 'm on." He's said that God chose him to be president. The list is long, and we won't recite it all here. The point though is that while Hugo is a rather animated personality, he's not doing anything that Bush doesn't wish Bush could equal in charisma. Hugo appeals to those who like in-your-face resistance.


Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Now we see the following:

The outgoing finance minister, Nelson Merentes, is being transferred to the central bank to oversee its return to state control. "The central bank must not be autonomous," says Chávez, "that is a neoliberal idea."


...foreign governments and journalists will concentrate on the fate of Marcel Granier's television station, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), which is scheduled to have its licence withdrawn.


Their behaviour was particularly foolish during the attempted coup against Chávez in April 2002. The four principal stations were involved in the plotting of the coup, in supporting the coup's short-lived president, and in failing to report the popular mobilisation, in the shantytowns and barracks across the country, that caused the coup's collapse. Out of an understandable desire to seek national unity in the wake of the coup, Chávez rejected calls to take action against the private stations, and some of them were indeed to moderate their tone in subsequent years. Granier's RCTV, however, became the most intransigently hostile, and associated itself with sections of the anti-democratic opposition that withdrew from the political process and threatened a violent outcome.[212]

RCTV supported the violent overthrow of the duly elected president of Venezuela. That's treason. A traitor loses his ability to make money. He loses his business. No one advocating the violent overthrow of a duly elected president of the US would be tolerated. However, the liars claim that Hugo Chavez has no right to take away so-called private property.

We don't agree with the mundane solutions of Hugo, but he is closer to the kingdom than are those who tried to overthrow him and his grassroots movement.

Chavez has the right idea though. Why pay the international financiers interest for nothing but headaches and being robbed blind and sent into abject poverty? Read our section on the Money Changers.

Nationalization, not expropriation

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Venezuela on Wednesday ruled out using confiscation to nationalize the country's largest telecommunications firm and said it could compensate shareholders for the planned take-over.

Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas told Reuters that Caracas was still studying how to go about nationalizing major utilities following President Hugo Chavez's announcement of the move on Monday, which roiled financial markets.

"The nationalization process will be carried out in accordance with the legal and constitutional framework, that, among other things, forbids expropriations," he said in an interview.[213]

There is no private property

If Venezuela does compensate, then the foreign capitalists won't have "expropriation of assets" as a pretext for invasion. Really, did the capitalists ever truly own the rights to the telephone company? Doesn't that right emanate in a democracy from the people? Therefore, don't the people have the democratic right to control the communications infrastructure as they vote? Weren't any contracts arrived at by undemocratic means null and void and unconstitutional in the first place?

These are mundane questions of course, but they do point out the hypocrisy of the capitalists who also claim to be democrats (small-d).

There is no private property. There is only what people agree to honor and why, based on what.

The capitalist strip the clothes off peoples' backs, yet they whine when those same people take away the excessive hoarding of the capitalist that the capitalists call private property simply because they stole it from the people in the first place—what a racket, what a bunch of pirates and racketeers.

What is going on in Venezuela is a contest of coercive wills. The more egalitarian side is the lesser of evils and will suffer the fewer stripes in the hereafter. The rabid capitalist outside and inside Venezuela who seek to devour the poor better see the light before it is too late for them to avoid the great soul-killing tribulation that is hell in the hereafter.

Free and fair elections

Friday, January 19, 2007

Free and fair? That's the question. Were the elections free and fair?

Well, Venezuela is a divided house, just as are all the other houses (nation-states) of the earth. Therefore, election results no matter what, are enforced via coercion. This is not the narrow way to heaven.

In the mundane sense, the elections were free and fair[214] relative to elections in the US. They were freer and fairer than elections held in the US.

Rule by decree for eighteen months

So Hugo is being given the authority to rule by decree for eighteen months. Can he be trusted to put the interests of the grassroots first at all times. It can't be done perfectly from within the coercive system. He can only do a relative job of it.

Will he reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the people better than the US government represents the true wishes of the US people? Without a doubt this will be the initial case.

The people there want their industries nationalized. It's their country. Does the US have the right to tell them they can't give Hugo such authority when the people have chosen their representatives and president in freer and fairer elections than those held in the US? No, the US doesn't have that right.

The oil and minerals and means of communication and the nation's currency belong to the Venezuelans as a whole and not to tyrannical international capitalist corporations and the global oligarchs.

The authority to issue decrees is a constitutional provision in Venezuela.

You don't get that information from the mainstream, corporate news in the US

A telling aspect of this enabling law is that one of the areas where Hugo will be allowed to issue decrees concerns "enabling of the direct exercise of popular sovereignty."[215] That means enhancing grassroots council type governmental control. That's the opposite of tyranny.

You don't get that information from the mainstream, corporate news in the US do you. They deliberately slant everything to plant seeds in the minds of the general public to fear Hugo's intentions. Well, it is the ( the next page number below)...continues... Click next page number below. [If you would like to see the full text on one page (helps with searching for text on the page), use the "No-Graphics Print Version".]


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 Sup4 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.