John McCain was asked on NBC's Today Show when he thinks US troops will return from Iraq. "That's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That's all fine," he said.

Well, that's not all fine. Also, the U.S. invaded and is occupying Iraq under false pretenses, which makes it mundanely illegal. Is John McCain so stupid as to not realize that the occupation is illegal? Does he want the precedent established that illegal wars are fine? It's extremely important. How can the U.S. be better off with someone of this mentality heading up things? It can't be. He's not bright enough to be the leader of the world.

As for Germany, South Korea, and Japan, those are forward deployments for what?

The U.S. is in Germany so the U.S. can better attempt to dictate terms to NATO and the E.U. NATO was set up to fight Russia when it was the Soviet Union. Being in Germany only serves to antagonize Russia. It only serves to heat up a new arms race. It's just a method of the Military-Industrial Complex to waste taxes on militarism and imperialism. All that money could be properly spent (rather than utterly wasted) on the general welfare. Also, the E.U. doesn't need the U.S. to defend it against Russia for several reasons. The E.U. is rich. Its economy is right up there with that of the U.S. and is surpassing it largely because the U.S. wastes so much on non-productive militarism. Also, Russia isn't interested in making war on Europe. Russia is interested in making money. They don't want to destroy their customers. Many of the moves by Vladimir Putin have been a direct result of George W. Bush's recklessness. If Bush hadn't been so reckless and had rather been helpful, Putin wouldn't have seen the need to tighten up for safety and security sake.

It has long since passed the time that the U.S. get out of South Korea and let the Koreans work it out. South Korea is relatively rich. The North is bare-bones poor due to economic sanctions. The same reason the U.S. is in Germany applies to South Korea only it is aimed at China. The same arms race is the result. It's a waste. Russia, China, and the U.S. should be putting their energies into the general welfare and not militarism.

Japan and China have to avoid a war. They have to work it out just as South and North Korea must work it out. The Japanese don't need to be pushed back into militarism. They had done the right thing when they declared their nation a pacifist nation. It was very wise. However, there have been those in the U.S. who have wanted Japan to re-militarize against China. That's exactly backwards. It's exactly the opposite direction of where the world should be going.

The Chinese are militarizing, because the other powers have and are. Peace doesn't come through militarism. War comes via militarism. Peace comes via demilitarizing. Total peace will come via totally demilitarizing.

And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. — Isaiah 2:4

The idea that a nation has to be armed to the teeth to avoid war just isn't born out by history.

The mindset of militarism is that violence is the best way of settling conflicts. With the advancements in weapons, parties will be more tempted to fire the first shot since it will be devastating to the opposition and won't result in a retaliatory strike. It won't leave toxics that make the land uninhabitable. The problem though with that is that the types of people left will pass on that lesson. It's a recipe for self-annihilation. Preventively kill everyone else, because anyone could become a violent enemy. It's utterly stupid and self-fulfilling. Everyone is the enemy of those who would so-called preventively destroy them. I'm an enemy of those neocon idiots. Only I'm a pacifist. Join me.


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.