When Marine General Peter Pace and Admiral William Fallon were moved around within the military after 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War and occupation, most people thought that George W. Bush and his neocons had selected Pace and Fallon for being onboard with the neocon's lead-up to the invasion and with their policies and practices in general. Obviously, that did not turn out to be the case.

Many anti-war commentators had given the neocons too much credit, had underestimated their difficulty in finding willing militarists, or both. In hind sight, it is likely that the correct answer is both with emphasis on the latter. They didn't qualify their writings by explaining that they didn't have sources for their views about Fallon in particular but were rather conjecturing.

It's never too late to clarify things though.

High ranking military people rise through the ranks not solely by the power of the office of the President. The U.S. military is part of the executive branch, but the legislative branch has huge overlapping authority and control. I won't go into all of that, because for one, I don't know enough about the details. This page (guide: Rod Powers) seems to offer a relatively detailed overview of things and a starting place for additional research if desired.

Peter Pace would not lay the blame for roadside bombs in Iraq at the doorstep of the mullahs of Iran. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is their highest ranking Muslim cleric. He calls the ultimate shots. Ahmadinejad does not. Without being able to blame (with concrete evidence) the top leadership of Iran, the neocons are more hard pressed to convince others to attack Iran. That is especially true since the neocons obviously blatantly lied in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq about, among everything else, Iraq's cache of weapons and weapons programs.

In addition, Peter Pace would not agree with the removal of the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions concerning openly active homosexuals serving in the military. Neocons want bodies for canon fodder, and they don't care whether or not they are the bodies of homosexuals or non-citizens I might add. This latter aspect is nowhere near as important to them though as Pace's refusal to lie beyond any credibility about the motives and actions of the ultimate leadership of Iran.

William Fallon was moved well after Peter Pace had been elevated. At the time, most anti-war coverage suggested that Fallon's expertise in naval warfare and especially naval air-warfare was an indication of the Bush neocon intention to bomb Iran into submission or back to the Stone Age. Again, it was assumed that Fallon was "on-board" with that plan. He was not, as we have all come to understand.

While from a military and political perspective things continued to be terribly mismanaged in Iraq and were further disintegrating out of the control of the neocons on all fronts, foreign and domestic, a "face-saving" psychological strategy to twist and reset the agenda concerning the definition of success was proposed by certain civilian, war-monger neocons (primarily the Kagans — Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Kimberly Kagan, Donald Kagan — amoral, immoral Greater Israel firsters) who hadn't jumped ship and who were still so-called loyal to Bush. Their strategy was fitted to the ostensible military theories written and somewhat evidenced in Iraq by David Petraeus. Those theories are highly controversial. I won't go into them here either for the sake of time and because suffice it to say, all his theories and practices are antichrist regardless and by definition.

Now, Pace, Fallon, and Petraeus all hold openly that the U.S. military is rightly civilian controlled, meaning the civilian executive branch sets the U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. military does not. All three also took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In fact, civilian control is part of that. Also constitutionality is the requirement for legal warfare. The U.S. Constitution expressly makes itself subject to international treaty obligations calling such the "supreme law of the land." International Treaties to which the U.S. has obligated itself are very clear about what is and what is not legal warfare. The Constitution is also specific about declarations of war.

When looking at the treaties and the other requirements in the Constitution, one finds that the Bush administration neocons have violated both the letter and spirit and done so blatantly and hugely. Their orders to the military have been illegal. Pace, Fallon, and Petraeus were all obligated to disobey those orders. All military officers and personnel were obligated under the law to disobey those orders.

Pace and Fallon refused to go along to a point but didn't refuse to follow all illegal orders. Fallon made it clear that they would have to fire him, because he would not carry out orders to attack Iran under then prevailing circumstances. Such an attack would not have been legal in his eyes. He probably would now say that such an attack would be illegal given the information we have at the time of this writing and the lack of any concrete evidence of illegal intention or actions on Iran's part. Therefore, they fired him.

Petraeus on the other hand, has gone along, as far as the public is allowed to see, with all the illegality. He's hedged his bet a bit here and there. One hears him refusing to point the finger directly at the mullahs, but he chooses his words in a way to appease the neocon liars as well, much more so than did Pace or Fallon and many other former generals and admirals I might add. Pace and Fallon are far from alone in their obvious aversion to the neocon agenda. That's why the neocons have been so hard pressed to find experienced top officers to do their bidding.

So, Petraeus has shown himself much more willing to attempt to tiptoe through the landmines of illegality for the sake of what? God alone knows in full. One doesn't rise so high in the Empire without showing a willingness to go along. In fact, one rises to the level of his or her willingness to go along and also ability to guess which way the plutocrat-wind is blowing.

The ad "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" caused a huge uproar at the time. Who constitutes the "Us" in the ad? The "Us" is the people as in "government of, by, and for the people." The U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, is supposed to enshrine that. However, the neocons don't see it that way. They see the "people" as a dumb mob to be ruled over.

When the people put out their ad, they were saying that Petraeus was betraying the Constitution and hence the people. Were they right or wrong? Well, Petraeus didn't say that he refuses to follow orders that are clearly illegal under the U.S. Constitution. He didn't say he refuses to follow orders from a so-called president who obtained the office by illegal, immoral, election fraud, which Bush did.

The title of this post is PETER PACE AND WILLIAM FALLON VERSUS DAVID PETRAEUS VERSUS JESUS. So, where does Jesus fit? Well, Jesus wouldn't follow an order to go to war regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says or doesn't say.

When one looks at the entirety of Jesus's teaching and life as recorded in the New Testament, one may learn what is real law versus falsehood. All the legal code of human beings claims to aspire to best government. No legal code has ever been written that can result in better government, behavior, organization, or results then the words and deeds of Jesus. His words and deeds are the legal code we ought to follow. Anyone calling himself or herself a Christian must live by (in accordance with) Jesus's words and deeds. Doing so will result in never violating the highest law.

The worst the can happen is that those who don't understand the highest law will misinterpret the law and wrongfully punish those who follow the law of Christ. That is what happened with most of the members of the then Sanhedrin when via kangaroo-court proceedings, they committed to moving the Roman Empire to sanction the execution of Jesus.

In other words, one can not be violating the U.S. Constitution in spirit and hence in letter when one is adhering to the real law spoken and executed by Jesus.

Are you able to see that?

Look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is signatory. How can one be adhering to the U.S. Constitution that subjects itself to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other treaty documents including those expressly prohibiting torture and still engage in waterboarding and not be violating the law? It can't be done. There is no way for those who waterboard others to be sure they are even handling the guilty. George W. Bush and his neocons authorized waterboarding and other brutal actions. They did that in direct contravention of the "supreme law of the land" and all it supporting legal documents. Doing so constitutes clear high crimes and misdemeanors that are impeachable offenses and grounds for removal from office.

The legislative body has the sworn obligation to uphold the law. To fail to impeach under these circumstances (and the other illegalities of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and other neocon governmental officials such as sweeping, warrantless spying) serves to undermine the law. There is no doubt about that. In fact, to fail is to create a state of true lawlessness.

Jesus provided the outline and general direction and spirit for properly dealing with offenders. His way is consistent with warning others away from error. It is consistent with the Golden Rule.

You will note that he does not provide for punishment but simply truthful discernment that necessitates not following wrongful leaders (those who don't adhere to the highest law).

You will note that George W. Bush has not been subjected to any process to rein him in and to remove him as leader for his poor and illegal leadership. This constitutes an unlawful government or lawlessness. This is not anarchy but lawlessness, which is different.

Anarchists have guiding principles that aspire to what they see as the highest morality. They are not by and large in favor of violence. Most are pacifists in fact.

George W. Bush subscribes to the idea that the U.S. Constitution is "just a God damned piece of paper." Those who believe that ought not to swear then to preserve, protect, and defend it. George W. Bush did though, just as he claimed to the world that he is Christian when he absolutely lied about that for votes. He swore that he believes in God while swearing to protect a goddamn piece of paper. Think about that. He lies full circle. It's pathological. We want him to turn.

George W. Bush believes that ultimately, he as President is not accountable to anyone. So far, most of the rest of the so-called government has acted in accordance with that belief.

George W. Bush believes that all is fair in war. It's doubtful he would admit it publicly. Well again, he swore to uphold the Constitution, which by legal extension says it is not the case that all is fair in war or politics.

George W. Bush is a neocon. He believes in the teachings of Leo Strauss that is based upon the so-called noble lie formulated by Plato. That philosophy holds that the masses are so dumb and incapable of learning that it is right that the elites fool them via myths into more manageable behavior. Jesus of course proved that completely wrong.

Jesus showed that the people are very much able to comprehend and that Plato's whole system is denial and self-deception.

Anyway, Machiavelli taught much the same thing as Plato only Plato pretended to morality much more so than did Machiavelli. Machiavelli though did do his best to justify (rationalize) his evil mentality. The neocons have built their system upon Plato, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Strauss, and others. Ultimately, they hold with might makes right. They are amoral, really immoral. They want material possession and control for themselves and then their offspring, then their other kin.

In their view, taking by force what you want is a sign of evolutionary superiority — greater fitness to survive. It's social, economic, and physical Darwinism all rolled into one. They don't believe in God or Jesus. Some will dispute this but not many.

Christianity, on the other hand, holds that such views are unenlightened and subhuman. Homo sapien means wise man. The neocons are unwise, hence subhuman in that sense. They hearken to dog-eat-dog. That's not human. That's dog. Humans are supposed to be above that mentality. Humans are supposed to lead dogs away from violent selfishness. They aren't supposed to adopt selfish-dog ways. God didn't give us our relatively large cerebral cortices only to be as wise as dogs or pigs or snakes. We aren't dogs, pigs, and snakes. At least we aren't supposed to be. We're people. We're supposed to act that way.

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.


  1. Avatar Christian Prophet says:

    Yes, quite true that there are God's laws and men's laws. See "Government Socialism Is Not Christian Charity."

  2. Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

    Hello to you, who call yourself, "Christian Prophet,"

    You write, "Government Socialism Is Not Christian Charity." Of course, it depends upon how one has defined "government." The government of God is Christian charity. If you define government as what now dominates the world, then you are right. It is important to make and state the distinction. Also, socialism is a term that has been twisted by capitalists and Marxists over the decades so that the general population now automatically thinks Marxism when it thinks socialism, which is an error. There were many socialists who did not agree with Marx. There were many socialists who were opposed to coercion. There were many who called themselves Christian socialists, which when understood as many of them understood what they meant by that, was not inconsistent. Violent people took over the movement by force.

    You write of socialism as synonymous with Marxism and coercion. That is an error. You need to qualify your statements and to define your terms rather than blurring unlike things together.

    As for Karl Marx's "10 policy programs," certain of them adopted voluntarily are not inconsistent with Christianity. All property is God's. All Christians are to be one with God. All Christians are to share as Jesus shares all with God, which is what Jesus said. All is the rightful inheritance of all. The selfish, greedy, violent ones have changed the world from righteousness to following the evil rules and scheme they have devised from the treasure in their hearts (materialism only). Currently, the U.S. currency is in the hands of a private monopoly (Plutocrats). Let us also be sure to define the "state" as having various forms one of which, the real one, is God's kingdom on Earth. Free education is not antichrist. Neither is the abolition (voluntary) of dangerous and negatively exploitative child labor.

    Your post discusses Marxist atrocities to the exclusion of discussing capitalist atrocities. Is that because you go into capitalist atrocities elsewhere on your site, or is it because you have a one-sided agenda to steer people away from the knowledge of the brutal history of laissez faire capitalism?

    You write, "...their [Marxist] programs have severely limited the natural expression of the inventive and creative spirit of hundreds of millions of people, resulting in countries all over the world stuck in chronic unemployment, shortages of goods and services, and severly [sic] limited freedom and opportunity. They have "killed" the spirit, so to speak."

    You don't mention the economic sanctions that have been used to surround and cut off people from freely trading. You don't mention the massive harm (including often death and starvation of even little children) that such capitalist sanctions have caused. Why do you fail to mention that? Do you discuss such things elsewhere on your site? Do you condemn such antichrist sanctions elsewhere as vehemently as you condemn Marxist harm?

    I do on my site.

    You also don't mention the sharing endeavors of many that have not led to chronic unemployment and shortages of goods and services. Many more sharing societies suffer less of these things than do the "let do" capitalist societies. In fact, many societies more sharing-leaning have less unemployment and shortages than does the U.S. with its recent fad of laissez faire capitalism. We now see what the movement to letting the capitalists do what they want without even speaking out against it has brought forth.

    You ignore the groups of Christians such as the Hutterites. They live more as the original Christians. There are tens of thousands of them. Most of the problems they suffer come from outside their communities. I'm not saying they are perfect, but much of what they are doing ought to be adopted by the mainstream.

    Your position suggests that only a selfish spirit is the spirit that can bring forth. So God is selfish in your view? You ignore what the laissez faire capitalists term externalities. Capitalist transactions, being based upon the spirit of "what's in it for me," brings forth a net loss when all things have been factored in. That's why it leads to more and more devouring and less and less real abundance. It leads to scarcity — manufactured scarcity. You need to do soul searching on this point especially.

    You also write, "All of the misery created over the last hundred and fifty years by socialist ideas stems from one single anti-Christian idea popularized by Karl Marx and his followers: you are a victim of the world you see."

    Please tell the truth. Jesus was victimized, or don't you think so? He was victimized by the world he saw around him. He knew the higher path would lift him up and out.

    You are denying that people oppress people. You are denying that there are oppressed people in the world. You are saying that belief that there are people oppressing others and that there are oppressed people is an invented illusion.

    You wrote, "Once you believe you are a victim of the world around you, you are likely to invent illusions of being oppressed or seeing an oppressed people, as Barack Obama and his church have done."

    Your position is not Christian. It's falsehood. There are oppressors. There are the oppressed. You are shilling for the plutocrats whether you know it or not.

    I don't hold with all things Obama, but he is correct when he holds with the statement that says, "God ... is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!" Why do you think Jesus said that to be perfect, one must give all, thereby retaining no private, personal property but rather understanding that even the clothes on one's back are God's and God is one with all who are one with God?

    You are failing to comprehend the state of oneness that is the real Christians spirit.

    You have been and remain brainwashed by capitalist, who are never Christians. There is no such thing as a capitalist Christian. The two are incompatible. There are Christians stuck in the capitalist world, just as Jesus was in the world ruled by those who worship Satan without many of them even realizing it. Those Christians though don't want the capitalist world to continue being the rule.

    The material world and the spiritual world will conflate. The New Heaven and New Earth are one. Jesus fed the people real food for both body and soul, or don't you think so? The material world is in a state of corruption.

    You speak of "free markets" without remembering that Jesus said that his Father's house is not to be a house of commerce. We are all to share. We are not to hold out in trade for recompense. You are missing the fundamentals of Christianity. You equate freedom with not being coerced into sharing. You are failing to see what is enslavement in choosing not to share.

    When someone chooses capitalism, he isn't choosing freedom. He's choosing the very commerce Jesus said is not to be in the house. Where is the house? What is it to encompass? Jesus made clear that the place we are to worship is not to be confined to the Temple building in Jerusalem that he correctly prophesied would be leveled. He made clear that God dwells within, wherever we are. The temple is within. Therefore, how may we have a heart for commerce rather than always sharing? We are not to divide our vision between mammon and God. We are to be with a single vision focused on God, not money.

    Have you never consider these things before? Now that they have been presented to you, do you love the truth?

    You say there is not mal-distribution. Do you believe there is nothing wrong with the few living as billionaires while many are being turned away from soup lines for lack of even soup? Do you believe that all those poor people are unwilling to help — lazy? Many have begged for work. Where is it? "Mal" is a prefix meaning "bad." I say the situation is bad. You say it isn't. I say you are putting bitter for sweet. I say you are spreading falsehood.

    You say, "Jesus doesn't care, as Barack Obama does, if some people have more and some people have less." Hogwash! Lie!

    I say, Jesus says, when you've fed those with the least, you have fed Jesus. I say that when you take the line that it is not a collective responsibility of Christians to feed the lambs and sheep of Jesus Christ, you are preaching an antichrist position.

    You write, "In his modern revelation for the 21st Century, A Course in Miracles, Jesus Christ thoroughly reinforces his teaching that the material world means nothing...." Are you alleging that Jesus wrote this thing you call, "A Course in Miracles"?

    Jesus did not write it!

    Who told you Jesus wrote that? Anyone who told you that is wrong and probably lying intentionally.

    We are to feed his lambs and sheep in both body and spirit. With sufficient faith, there can be feedings as with the feeding of the five thousand, but where there is not such faith, we remain obligated as Jesus said to bring forth for flesh bodies, which are the temporal vessels of living spirits and souls. Do you dispute this?

    I see that you are a Mormon. You hold that Joseph Smith found golden tablets (or whatever you want to call them) with a story that is now the Book of Mormon. Wake up! Joseph Smith found no such tablets. The so-call history, or perhaps you'd call it prehistory, of the Americas never happened. It was all made up. If you believe Joseph Smith, you believe a lie and will be more disposed to being further misled.

    May God bless you with the whole truth.

    Tom Usher

    P.S. Are you afraid of allowing comments on your site?

  3. Avatar Christian Prophet says:

    Hi Tom!

    On the one hand, it seems you have misunderstood me. I have no problem with voluntary socialism, only socialism enforced by a government gun.

    On the other hand, you seem to make the same mistake you think I make, in that you assume a strange selfish motive on the part of capitalists. You need to read "The Spiritual Foundation of Free Markets"

    We seem to agree that the material world is a state of corruption, but I see capitalism as spiritual, not materialistic; while it seems you see socialism as not materialistic. So we have to see which is true, but to do so we have to be willing to give up preconceived ideas. Otherwise, we only see what we want to see.

    If you let yourself partake of A Course in Miracles, you will eventually understand that it is modern day revelation from Jesus Christ. I have no problem with those who resist the Course. It's like Saul. His resistance was eventually released.

    I am not a Mormon. You might call me a Liberal Christian.

    There are some comments on my blog, but I usually delete comments that are negative and seem closed-minded.

  4. Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

    Hello Brian,

    No, I didn't misunderstand about your saying you "have no problem with voluntary socialism, only socialism enforced by a government gun." Do you also believe that capitalism shouldn't be enforced by a government gun? I hope so for the sake of your soul. If you do believe that, you're in a rare minority amongst self-described capitalists.

    I have read about capitalism from the objectivist, libertarian, and anarcho slants. I've read about it from Smith's and Ricardo's perspective and the perspective of yet others. As for assuming "a strange selfish motive on the part of capitalists," most of the people who have come here in defense of capitalism have had no problem with admitting that it is based upon selfishness. Most defend selfishness. Here you are claiming capitalism isn't based upon selfishness.

    Capitalism isn't the spirit of Christian giving. It isn't something Jesus called his followers to either teach or do with their souls. Capitalism is trade. Capitalist traders hold out for recompense and private profit. It isn't good, unlike the voluntary giving-and-sharing economy envisioned and practiced by Jesus and his closest followers. If you claim to be a Christian while arguing that so-called free-market capitalism is better than what the first disciples actually did or that we should follow laissez faire capitalism rather than what the first Apostles and Christ did between and among each other, you're not being a true believer.

    Oh, capitalism is spiritual and so is socialism whether or not capitalists or socialists know it. The question is which spirit and concerning which version of socialism. Capitalism is no doubt from Satan. Capitalism is lording it over others. It is not washing their feet. The capitalist is not the last who shall be first. He is the first who shall not remain so.

    Christians are to be family. Family is not to charge members to come to the table. All are to help the family without charge to the best of his or her gifts and abilities. That's basic. Capitalism, per se, doesn't do that or advocate that at all.

    Capitalism, being based upon getting for self first and foremost, leads in the direction of raping the land and other people. It is acquisitive. It accumulates and often hoards. It promotes excess and harm. That's its spirit. It also arms and equips and pays armies to coerce others into opening up to that system. There is no freedom in it.

    Capitalists have done all manner of evils for the sake of devouring for self that is apart from God — astray.

    As for socialism, you are still using it as synonymous with Marxism, which it is not. There is real socialism that is synonymous with Christianity. There is no way to be non-violent and non-coercive and believe in the kind and degree of giving and sharing desired by Jesus and not be a Christian. It takes the love and peace of Jesus to achieve that kind and degree of sharing he shares with God and his friends (real friends) who love what he taught and did that was not capitalism in the least. He cleans the Temple of capitalists.

    As for preconceived ideas, the ideas are Jesus's. I used to fall for the serpent somewhat about capitalism. I outgrew that. I couldn't fall back into that error if I tried. I don't need to see which is true. I already know. I know what Jesus said and I know he was and remains right.

    Let me ask you, before you left your comments here, how much reading did you do on this site? Did you read "ABOUT OUR NAME: REAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH" and "ARTICLE ON: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN: JESUS IS A SMALL-C COMMUNIST" and at least "EXCERPTS ON SMALL-C COMMUNISM"? I don't think you have. Yet you're asking me to read even more redundant capitalist dogma from Hell. You won't find the above articles anywhere else on the Internet unless they are cited duplicates or un-cited plagiarisms. Before you continue debating with me, I suggest you stack up your position against what I've already written that you have never seen before in any version. You can also look at the category: Libertarian Capitalism: False Shepherds. It's not up to date, but it covers plenty.

    Some of my more recent posts ought to enlighten you as to whether or not your arguments will stand up. They won't. Your first premise is wrong.





    Be sure to read the comments on that last one.

    After that, if you think you have something to add that hasn't already been refuted, I'll engage you.

    Capitalism is not, never has been, and never will be part of the revelation of Jesus Christ. If you think it is, you're deceiving yourself and any who believe you about it.

    You say you're not a Mormon. Why are you part of a Mormon Blog ring? That's very misleading.

    You said, "You might call me a Liberal Christian." No, I wouldn't. You don't fit the definition of a real liberal Christian. You line up with the capitalists and all they bring forth that is always a net loss both materially and spiritually. It leads to death of the soul. Satan is a capitalist. He's also a coercive socialists (false socialist). Those who are "best" at capitalism fund the wars. They do the most to addict others to drugs. They do the most illegal weapons deals. They do the most to traffic in human and child sex slavery. They do the most money laundering for the largest other crooks in the world. They have monopolized the currency. They are the ones to whom much of the interest on the national debt is paid. They are the ones whose private central bank accounts are never audited by the U.S. government or IRS. They own the military-industrial complex and send their war machine out into the world to take what they want and the locals be damned. They are the ones who pay for the CIA and others to undermine democracies, even as they claim to be for the people choosing in what they call free and fair elections.

    That's the spirit of capitalism regardless of what Ayn Rand or others including you say to try to claim the tree doesn't bring forth such fruit by which we know the tree. Argue against that if you can! It's straight from Jesus. I suggest you rather turn away from defending that tree and its wicked fruit and turn to real Christianity that is of, by, and for the people giving and sharing and not for holding out for recompense in the form of money, their contrived (wholly manmade) medium of exchange.

    You wrote, "There are some comments on my blog, but I usually delete comments that are negative and seem closed-minded." You don't let your readers and visitors be the judge of those things. You give them only what you want them to see, and you conceal points-of-view that differ from yours, such as mine. I'm not calling for you to allow anyone to say just anything he wants to on your blog. Spammers (who are evil) would render sites un-usable regardless of the quality of the site's message.

    There are many other things I could say here about capitalism to show how it is not and can never be Christian. I'd just be repeating most of what I've already written. It is wiser simply to steer others to what's already there than it is to spend huge numbers of hours rewriting it all for each commentator.

    Again, may God bless you, Brian, with the truth.

    Tom Usher

Comments are closed.