U.S. MILITARY VERSUS ILLEGALLY ELECTED U.S. PRESIDENT

It has long been a principle of American government that the military always defer to elected civilian policy makers. It is why the President of the U.S. is referred to as the Commander in Chief, the supreme commander of all the armed forces of the nation. Remarkably, the U.S. military has historically adhered t.o this command. What happens though when it becomes widely known, as it is, that the person being referred to as President of the United States was not elected in free and fair elections but rather conspired to and did obtain the office via illegal means, namely hugely documented election fraud?

What happens when that person, who illegally and fraudulently is occupying the office of President, further conspires to, and does, commit a false-flag attack on the nation, deliberately debauches the currency, takes the nation into likewise illegal wars, and is threatening to take the nation into further wars? What is the military's obligation?

Is the U.S. military obligated to follow illegal orders issued by a person who obtained the office of Commander in Chief by illegal and unconstitutional means, or is the U.S. military obligated to arrest that person and reestablish constitutional law?

The officers of the U.S. military are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. In any instance where they know that any ostensible superior officer, including a supposed Commander in Chief (who is both military and civilian), obtained his or her office via high crimes against that Constitution, it is the sworn duty of such officers to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

We are not advocating violence or punishment. We are not part of the secular system. When asked, we simply say that our duty is to follow the Gospel concerning who is and who isn't fit to shepherd the flock and the proper procedure for dealing with those who are unfit. The Gospel is our constitution, and we are bound to follow it or be hypocrites.

The U.S. Constitution in spirit on some level reflects the attempt at the time of its origination to improve upon preceding law. It is an elaborate system of checks and balances all designed in an attempt to make more possible divergent belief systems living side-by-side without domestic violence and with a minimum of oppression. Unfortunately, that is an attempt to cobble together irreconcilable ideologies, since at one extreme is the total belief in the law that is the New Commandment while at the other extreme is the law that is falsehood and the opposite of that New Commandment. These two sets of laws are incompatible, and no amount of checks and balances, etc., can adhere to the New Commandment. Only coercion upholds the Constitution of the U.S., and it does so for the sakes of the self-authorized elite at the direct negative expense of all others.

Nevertheless, for those who hold with that U.S. Constitution, they can at least be faithful to it rather then pay lip service to its spirit while turning a blind eye to those who call it "just a God-damned piece of paper" ("Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'," by Doug Thompson. Capitol Hill Blue. December 5, 2005), as did George W. Bush, while also having taken the same oath to preserve, protect, and defend it and while also having, among other things, stolen two elections to hold fraudulently and illegally the office of President.

For a U.S. citizen or citizens to steal U.S. presidential elections, carry out false-flag operations against the U.S., take the U.S. into illegal wars, and spy domestically on U.S. citizens without proper warrants constitutes treason under the U.S. Constitution. These are far from all the actions taken by George W. Bush that are illegal under that Constitution. Let us not forget torture.

Also, George W. Bush has lost the U.S. military. They have refused to attack Iran just on his order to do so. He's run out of military officers who will slavishly agree. General David Petraeus is his last and is failing. The wound in Iraq is being covered by very expensive makeup, not healed: Paying local warlords $300 per month per militia member and locking up tens of thousands of others, most of them completely innocent ("Arrested Development." Decline and Fall. December 20, 2007). Most of those being thusly paid are Sunnis, who are not loyal to the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq. That's not unifying. That's setting up future problems when the U.S. washes its hands. Also, success isn't accomplished by neighborhood Apartheid "blast walls" walls and numerous West Bank style checkpoints ("The War Continues") (Iraq: The Continuing Story). Also, the population has been greatly reduced: Killed (1 million-plus by some reputable estimates) or turned into war refugees (some 5 million). That's not success. That's failure. Also, we don't have independent information about what is happening throughout the country ("Mirage of Improvement in Iraq: Yet Another Facelift for the Failed Occupation," by Dahr Jamail. Islam Online December 10, 2007).

Bush knows all of this and so do the neocons and false Zionists. The Bush-43 administration has therefore released the recent NIE on Iran for 2007 as cover. Barring getting Iran to undertake an attack on Kurdistan (as the Turks have been willingly sucked into doing as a result of some of Petraeus's training and arming of Kurds who did cross-border attacks against Turkey) or via some other provocation, Israel will have to take the lead in any attack on Iran. This is not lost on many in the U.S. military ("Iran War: American Military Versus Israel Firsters," by James Petras. Dandelion Salad. November 29, 2007).

How will that U.S. military react?

Donate


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.