Why is the U.S. following the vision of the Project of the New American Century? They are neoconservatives or new conservatives. They were anti-capitalists (socialists) who are now using capitalism to further their same ambitions. They have always wanted a worldwide, violent revolution. Today, they seek total war. They seek to use nuclear weapons to destroy the enemies of the unrepentant, Old Testament Jews who murdered Jesus Christ. They seek their bloodline lording it over the whole human race as slaves in the worst sense.

They rationalize all of this. They lie to themselves and to everyone else and call it smart.

They have been seeking to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons if it comes to that. They are prepared to fight Russia and China simultaneously, not fearing drawing the entire world into the hottest world war ever (WWIII). They believe that the U.S. has weapons supremacy (a wide scientific and technology edge) that would see the U.S. prevailing in the war they are trying mightily to cause.

Right now, even the Admiral who was elevated to the top of the Middle Eastern theater, William J. Fallon, put into place for his apparent expertise in waging air wars, has publicly stated that he is strongly opposed to a preemptive attack on Iran and that it would not happen on his watch. Are we to read into that that he would resign before agreeing to execute any such order? Is he saying more than that? The Russians are taking it as a sign of the U.S. military top-command becoming fed up with the neocons. What was the litmus test for Fallon to be elevated though?

Right now, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman is openly for attacking Iran. He has called for it. Also, Norman Podhoretz, the editor-at-large of Commentary magazine (the Jewish-neoconservative mouthpiece), wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "The case for bombing Iran." He said Ahmadinejad is the current Adolf Hitler (as if Ahmadinejad calls the shots in Iran and as if Iran has the capacity of pre-WWII Germany) and said Iran plans to "overturn the ... international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." He further wrote, "The plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force - any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938."

Why would Iran want to commit suicide? This person, Podhoretz, is asking the world to believe that Iran will come to dominate the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, and India, etc., if the U.S. and Israel don't attack them right away. Why do the Iranians have to have intentions that are as evil as Podhoretz just because Podhoretz says so? Who is he that his views should dominate U.S. policy?

The truth of the matter is that it is Podhoretz who seeks fascism. What Israel is doing now and has been doing well before 1948 is fascistic. Their "transfer" policy is Nazism. It is for living room for the Jews at the negative expense of those the Jews make clear they hold as ethnically inferior: Arabs. Just look at the polls coming out of Israel where the vast majority openly holds to Jewish ethnic superiority and the Arabs as subhuman (just as the Nazis depicted Jews).

"Mr. Olmert: Tear Down This Wall," by Sam Sedaei. November 2, 2007.

Really, Iran is not pre-WWII Germany. They aren't positioned to become pre-WWII Germany and they don't want that role vis-à-vis Israel and the U.S. and the rest of the world, including Germany. They don't though agree with how Israel came about and neither do we. It was an illegitimate process. It was patently unfair to the Arabs who were already living in the area. It was rife with Jewish terrorism and fascist insanity that has a very strong current in Apartheid Israel. This isn't to say that Israel is the only nation to come about by evil conquest, far from it.

"Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," by Trita Parsi. Asia Times Online :: Middle East News. June 14, 2007.

"Neocon 'godfather' Norman Podhoretz tells Bush: bomb Iran," by Sarah Baxter. The Sunday Times. September 30, 2007.

"CentCom Commander Fallon: Attack On Iran 'Will Not Happen On My Watch'," by Faiz. Think Progress. May 16, 2007.

The U.S. has asked for more money to fit bombers with huge bunker-buster bombs. The bombs are so huge that the B-2 stealth bombers can only carry one at a time. The hangers at Diego Garcia (the U.S. military island in the Indian Ocean) are reportedly being remodeled to handle the retrofitted bombers.

"Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans," by Ian Bruce. The Herald. October 29, 2007.

These are reputedly conventional (non-nuclear) bombs. "Nuclear" carries with it a psychological cascade into escalation that the general population abhors. Podhoretz is advising against using them to start with to make attacking more palatable.

His propaganda isn't working. That's because people can just look at what Israel is doing and readily see that pathological liars are running that country and they are the neocons.

Bush wants the American people to be throwbacks. He wants them seeing the new boogieman of the neocons choosing (a long list of countries in Asia, Africa, and South America) for the sake of war for capitalist profits. He does this while claiming to be a Christian.

He claims to be a Christian while he takes his direction from antichrists—the Jesus-hating neocons. What the neocons hate about Hitler is that he wasn't Jewish and Nazi Germany wasn't Israel. They don't have any problem with doing what Hitler did just so long as it is directed toward other than the Jews.

George W. Bush is univocal with the neocons against Christ.

Of course, we have the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency saying that it has found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program—only electrical-energy related research and development.

Also, the self-styled coalition of the willing has found no Iranian weapons crossing the border with Iraq.

Meanwhile, the libertarian capitalist's major complaint is over losses to their private estates due to the actions of the neocons who in the end are ruled by the global plutocrat-bankers ruled by Satan. If only the U.S. would withdraw militarily everywhere and fight only those who would deny it the right to be capitalistic and if only it would just do that and maximize profits for Americans, then the libertarian capitalists would be fine with the direction.

"Sinking Currency, Sinking Country," by Pat Buchanan. November 2, 2007.

Now, the non-libertarian capitalists know all of this. Why then do they continue on with their plan? It isn't hard to answer at all. They intend to steal more to cover the losses. If the other person starts to get more, just fight harder to take it away from him. That's capitalism. The globalists have been kicking open market doors. They've taken losses to lure open those doors. They aren't patriotic. They aren't nationalists. They're global capitalist now. They don't care about the U.S. dollar. They care about moving their money around before the masses. They care about having the inside scoop. Therefore, they plan ahead, trick everybody else into even shorter-term thinking, and then make their move first. Of course, this really represents just another variation on the theme of short-sightedness.

Those who are against all of this though say organize, organize, organize. They always have partial-truth answers only. However, only the Christian Commons that is the economy of the New Commandment understood by the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ is the solution here and now and everywhere and forever. It has been available since the beginning with God, but hearts have been too self-hardened to see it.

You get what your heart deserves, but many souls don't deserve to know it.

Why are people calling themselves Christians knowingly violating Jesus's teaching against war? Why do they join the military? Why don't more people know that there is no such thing as a military Christian? Why don't people calling themselves Christians stand up for what Jesus said that is to turn the other cheek rather than going to war?

People ignore the truth. They do that for selfish reasons as night follows day. It's all evil.

Look at sites such as Military Christians Worldwide. Has no one ever told them that Jesus said to turn the other cheek? Have they not read it for themselves? Why do they create such a site? Why do they lie so? How do people fall for it since it is so obvious? Jesus was amazed at the unbelief. Isn't it just amazing that people think they can join the military and do the exact opposite of turning the other cheek and still claim to be Christians.

Here's another site. It's called God and Country. They say it's "a ministry of" Think about how right now there are billions more people on the planet who have fallen for this lie of Christians fighting and killing than there are people who are not blind to what is written that Jesus said with his own mouth that proves beyond any doubt that he said don't fight.

Now, here's a much more thoughtful post entitled, "Christians in the Legions, Part 1" on the New Liberty Creation website. (This is not an endorsement of everything they may espouse.) They aren't though making the blatant error of calling for war. They are closer to the kingdom than are the so-called Military Christians, much closer.


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.
    • Thanks for the link and the plug. We're just trying to figure out what it means to be Christians in the post-modern world, and the best ways to spread the kingdom.

    • Hi Matt,

      We are glad you are anti-war and are making the case that militarism is inconsistent with Christianity.

      We see that your libertarian and capitalist leanings are very heavily influenced by your concern for the poor. Tolstoy too held to Christian-anarchism, as you are probably aware.

      The Real Liberal Christian Church position is that Christianity is individual self-government allowing the greatest individual freedom and sovereignty possible by sharing completely in the total freedom from evil and ultimate collective and individual sovereignty that is God's. We see this in the emphasis Jesus placed upon God's being one and Christians being one. We also see it in his message of the last being first, the chiefest being the servant — turning the status quo on its head.

      The Jews who would not convert knew this. We see it in Acts 17:6, where those Jews were crying that the Christians "have turned the world upside down." Many self-styled Christians work against this though. It's why we still have those who lord it over us, as Jesus described them (George W. Bush, et al).

      Keep seeking Matt. Your heart appears to be turning toward the one proper orientation.

      God bless,