The so-called surge in Iraq isn't working. First of all, what constitutes working? If one defines working as clamping down on and fracturing people who fight against U.S. imperialism, then one might consider some of the manipulated and censored numbers coming out of the Pentagon, which lies for its living, as indicating that the so-called surge is working. However, we don't define working that way.

Any so-called surge working is not a good thing, because U.S. imperialism, when that imperialism is anti-God, is not a good thing. The current U.S. imperialism is anti-God, when one defines God in accordance with how Jesus expressed God.

Jesus Christ is against the current U.S. imperialism, even as he is against al Qaeda and all militancy. Depending upon the context, he is also for and against the lesser of evils. Of course he wants lesser evil, always. However, what he wants is no evil. How to achieve that is via doing what he said to do, which is being one-hundred percent pacifistic. The U.S., however, is anything but pacifistic.

Right now, the U.S. is paying other people in falling U.S. dollars to die for the sake of the U.S. occupation of Baghdad while U.S. troops spend more time inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and on other bases in the country. The Shiites and Sunnis have been fractionalized by the U.S./Israeli policy, something the Muslims played right into for the sake of coming out the other end dominant over other Muslims. That's the divide-and-conquer strategy always at work with the neocons who are dominated by antichrists (Jesus rejecters).

Also, the population of Baghdad has plummeted. If deaths drop at a rate lower than the rate at which people have been turned into refugees and if most Sunnis have been driven out or are still planning to leave, is it right to call that "working"? Also, how long will the U.S. be able to afford this considering the recent drop in the U.S. economy? Can the neocons outrace the drop in the economy? Can the oil industry bring oil on line what with all the saboteurs who will remain in Iraq?

The whole venture is chaos, but that's what the neocons wanted and still want.

Anyone can say anything is working depending upon how "working" is defined. When one compares the situation in Iraq with Heaven, it's absolutely clear that the neocons aren't headed in the direction of Heaven but rather toward a continuation of their historical pattern of land grabbing and ethnic and racial supremacy.

The Jews in general though don't attempt to couch their ambitions in religious terms now. Most of them have become atheists since their warped view of God didn't protect them from their own sins. They were severely punished by the Nazis (who were also punished) and turned away from their mistaken vision of God to atheism for the most part. Only the Christian Fundamentalists and Christian Zionists cling to a severely warped Old Testament view of God. They too will be disillusioned and disabused of their mistaken ideas and traditions.


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.