U.S. Senator, Virginia Democrat, Jim Webb had tried earlier to move legislation that would require Bush to get Senate approval before attacking Iran accept under certain circumstances. The legislation went nowhere. Now, Hillary Clinton has reportedly signed on as a co-sponsor, the only one so far (Thursday, October 11, 2007). Well, this is a political move to increase her election chances. She'd been firmly pro-false-Zionist and paid a price on the far left and left-center. She's being moved here by her consultants and managers to gain back some of that false-left-center. The timing is telling.

The neocons are slowly being backed into a corner, or so the propaganda artist would have you believe.

We've heard recently that the Israelis are concerned that any attack on Iran will be blamed on the Jewish Lobby and will cause a backfire on Israel. Therefore, we are directed to read between the lines that Hillary isn't going to take real heat over this, meaning Jewish money will still back her or is to back her.

The ultimate plan never changes though. The forces of darkness struggle for selfishness and the forces of light for unselfishness.

Benjamin Netanyahu is being primed to become the Prime Minister of Israel again. He's a fascist. He's been saying Iran poses a Nazi-like threat to Jews. He's said its 1939, Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is Hitler. The so-called Christian-Zionist, John Hagee, has been echoing the same line.

The seesaw movement by Hillary Clinton is farcical. She wants to appear less reckless than Bush to allay concerns of the peace movement, to reduce the hue and cry against her hawkishness.

We also hear the so-called left attempting to cozy up to the top U.S. military to encourage it to be very strong in voicing the anti-attack position behind closed doors in the administration and elsewhere.

This is all divided-house futility. Christians see right through it. There is no way for the United States of America consistently to do the right thing. It can't. It is a forced government of inherently irreconcilable natures—God versus Satan, Jesus versus the coming Antichrist.

Christians need to bring forth the new wineskin: The unforced Christian Commons, forced only by the force of truth in the heart.

These are two different connotations of the term "force." Learn the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ. It is always contextual.


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 Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.