So, Hillary would order Iran to be totally obliterated if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel. Is that what she said? Well, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and doesn't want them. The only reason they would acquire them would be if they follow the stupidity of Israel and the other nuclear-weapons states like India and Pakistan, South Korea, China, Russia, France, England, and the United States and any other nuclear-weapons state.

The Iranians publicly stated that if Israel attacks Iran in a first-strike, Iran would destroy Israel. The Iranians were making a statement about self-defense in traditional sense.

Hillary Clinton didn't offer many qualifications. She offered a mutual-defense treaty position. An attack on Israel will be treated as if the attack were on the U.S. directly.

She didn't say whether or not that pertains solely to when Israel hasn't done anything to precipitate the attack upon Israel. Such precipitation would include an Israeli so-called preventative first-strike.

If Israel attacks Iran based solely upon the pretexts so far offered up, namely that the Israelis claim without having evidence to substantiate the claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to use on Israel and if the U.S. then attacks Iran after an Iranian retaliatory strike against Israel, the U.S. will definitely go to Hell.

The U.S., even in the most mundane sense, must tell Israel that if Israel attacks Iran without clear and undeniable evidence of an imminent threat of attack in the near future, Israel will be on its own afterwards.

Now, the Real Liberal Christian Church position is that the U.S. and Israel should be about the business of peacemaking and helping all of humanity rather than saber rattling and making war.

That said, I want to state clearly and plainly that this neocon leadership that never knows when to back off is guided by the antichrist, satanic spirit. The neocons are based upon Israel. The conservatives before the neocons (new conservatives) did not base their foreign policy upon Israel. It was during the Cold War when Russia was making inroads with certain socialist-leaning Arabs that the U.S. cozied up with Israel in spite of Israeli evils (covetousness, land theft, and maiming and murdering Palestinians).

There were many forces (spirits; emotions) at work at the time. The racist Dixiecrats were being sucked away with the Southern Strategy of the Republicans playing the race card, as it's called. It became a somewhat transformed same old alliance of haves against the have-nots. It's been playing out ever since and has brought us to the second Gilded Age and Roaring Twenties rolled into one.

Now, the vast majority of neocons are Jews. Those neocon Jews have more then just a passing affinity to their fellow Jews in Israel. It's much as with how American Anglo-Saxons felt when Germany was hitting England. To be sure, there were Germans in the U.S., but they were greatly outnumbered by Anglo-Saxons.

The thing about the neocon Jews though is that they are not tempered by or restrained by Jesus Christ. They reject Jesus almost to a man and to a woman. In doing so, the total prohibition against violence that Jesus taught (turn the other cheek always) is something that doesn't confront them from within their religion, history, culture, or what have you.

That's a huge problem and one that all Christians must confront, as Jesus did and head on.

The U.S. has been sucked backwards by neocons. The neocons (driven extensively by Jews in hugely disproportionate numbers) have brought torture into open use by the U.S. It was horrid that it was and still is always going on in secret, but the neocons are trying to persuade the people to fall way down into the dark and bottomless pit of saying it's okay.


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.