Yesterday at about this time, I posted "American Labor: Wake Up Concerning Apartheid Israel" in response to an article in the Jewish daily Forward by Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and also president of the Jewish Labor Committee.

In the very next post, "Anti-Semitism: Reuters Rubbish," I wrote the following:

Look who's lumping everyone together as if the government of Israel represents all Jews. It doesn't any more than the Bush-43 administration has represented all Americans. Anyone criticizing Bush isn't besmirching my character, and I'm a citizen of the U.S.

Well, then in Australia, they wrote this.

Andrew Ferguson, the CFMEU's chief in NSW who authorised his union's participation in the ad, told The Australian yesterday: "I do not accept that being critical of policies of the Israeli state makes us anti-Semitic, just as being critical of the policies of George Bush does not make us anti-American." [Good for him! It's pure logic.]
The nation's union movement has divided over the issue, with right-wing Australian Workers Union secretary Paul Howes accusing the CFMEU and MUA of "lining up with Hamas".

"US Jews attack unions over ad," by Brad Norington. The Australian. March 31, 2008.

Now, that second part is also wholly illogical. Being critical of Apartheid Israel is not necessarily to be lining up with Hamas. I'm critical of the Apartheid policies of Israel, but I'm not lining up with Hamas.

People need to stop being so unintelligent about these things. I'm not with either Hamas or the Likudniks. I'm no neocon, and I'm not a Muslim or militant.

From where do these so-called leaders come? Who's choosing them to lead? Why would anyone choose people who twist so to lead them anywhere? The Australian Workers Union is going to regret it if they don't turn and repent concerning Israel and the Palestinians. Andrew Ferguson of the CFMEU is exactly right on this issue. All union members everywhere should be standing in total solidarity with him on it.

Obviously, many unions in the U.S. have been cowed and brainwashed by people with split personalities. On one hand, the egalitarianism of the union movement is right while on the other hand, coveting and expropriating other people's land and homes is also okay so long as one can milk enough sympathy over having been mistreated by others (Jews having been murdered by Nazis).

It's disgusting. It's so transparent. How can they even imagine for a moment that they can hide behind a cover that isn't even there? The truth is naked. The false Zionists have nothing behind which to hide. God isn't covering them. They are completely exposed as hardhearted liars and ethnic bigots and racists.

Listen, if people want to live separately, that's their choice. It isn't right though that they go and kick others out of their homes so they can then move in to live apart.

The U.S. and Britain and the other powers at the time had no right to give the Palestinians' land and homes to the Jews. They had no right at all! The Roman Empire destroyed Israel, not the Palestinians. The Germans exterminated Jews, not the Palestinians.

The fact that many Palestinians are Muslims doesn't give anyone the right to steal their land and homes and to continually squeeze them harder and harder into smaller and harsher conditions. It's evil no matter who's doing it. It is certainly antichrist.

The ruse just isn't going to work anymore. People aren't falling for it the way they used to. The standards are rising. More people are demanding truth rather than falling for brainwashing and thought-terminating statements such as the CFMEU and MUA are necessarily "lining up with Hamas."

Get real! Wake up, or you lose your souls.


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.