So, British Petroleum with China National Petroleum Corp. have been awarded the first contract for foreign corporations to develop an Iraqi oil field in some 30 years. Isn't it interesting that China is involved. What's the point there?

  • Let the Chinese take the first brunt from insurgents.
  • Let the Chinese show the true costs of doing the work there.
  • Set China up for a fall that will be the result of some secret plan in the works.
  • Otherwise, who in the West is heavily invested in China National Petroleum Corp.? Why fight China's influence in Africa but turn around and let China into Iraq after spending hundreds of billions to bring Iraq under the Empire? Well, bring China under the Empire too.
  • Suck China in. Make them have a stake in Iraq and the Anglo-American-Israel Empire.
  • Draw them away from Iran and Russia.
  • Defuse the criticism that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney went into Iraq for what Cheney called "the prize" of oil.
  • Make Obama look like a more even-handed ruler.

(See: "Iraq Approves BP-Led Bid to Develop Rumaila Oil Field," by Anthony DiPaola and Caroline Alexander. Bloomberg. July 1, 2009.)


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.
    • According to this: one explanation for the Chinese and the British being the only companies to win contracts may be the contracts themselves. They are high risk bids which are skewed in favor of the Iraqis who cannot insure safety. Also, the foreign companies will act as contractors, increasing oil production on behalf of the state which will retain a substantial controlling interest.

      • Hello Rosa,

        Well, you did qualify by saying "one explanation." I can't preclude that you may rather have been thinking "part of the overall explanation." Certainly, the "deal" was not solely an open-bidding process where all objectively qualified contractors could win based upon the dollar amount on the bottom line.

        The Chinese were not in favor of the invasion, and to my memory, did not supply troops. That the Empire has allowed them into the exploitation process deserves deeper examination. Do you have any deeper insights here?


        Tom Usher