The only things I've heard so far that Jeremiah Wright has been reported as saying or supporting with which I disagree concern 1) damning America 2) not making clear where he separates from Louis Farrakhan 3) the U.S. created HIV/AIDS to attack Blacks, and 4) homosexuality. I'm sure there are other things where I would not walk with him, but those are the ones that have been mentioned most often in the mainstream media.

I believe his recent comment that Farrakhan has been unfairly labeled an anti-Semite when Farrakhan has been specifically targeting the racist brand of Zionism is worth following up upon. Has Farrakhan ever made truly ethnically bigoted statements against Jews? Has he ever lumped them all together as being beyond redemption?

Farrakhan certainly is right about the plight of the poor. He is wrong though to be a follower of Mohammed when Christ is so much better.

As for Wright restating that he doesn't put anything past the U.S. government when he is questioned concerning the HIV/AIDS virus, where are the specifics for how he connects the virus to the U.S. government or at least suspects the government and why does he think they targeted Blacks, per se. After all, it was the homosexual community that was hit the hardest the earliest.

Yes, the Blacks in Africa have suffered in huge numbers, but doesn't that point to promiscuity? Oh, of course there is plenty of promiscuity in Whites and in the U.S.

What would people say, that the U.S. targeted the Blacks in Africa because those Blacks didn't have the resources to educate the people fast enough about condoms or that the U.S. policy then turn to abstinence-only? Those are legitimate questions, but I still haven't heard reasoning beyond just saying that the government is capable of such reprehensible acts. They are capable, but that doesn't mean they did it. There are enough evil deeds that we know they did that it is unnecessary to say with any confidence that the government created AIDS against the Blacks. Keep it in the realm of speculation until there is more than just "wouldn't put it past them."

I mention homosexuality in connection with Wright, because homosexuality is being given a pass it does not deserve. I am against coercion, but it is required of Christianity to warn people about what is harmful. Once the truth is out there, if people choose to go against it, they choose blindly to walk into the ditch. All other things being equal, a homosexual life style always leads to negative consequences greater than if they don't engage in such behavior. It does result in many diseases. It is a disease state in and of itself. We have the documentation on this site.

Now, with all that said, I must say that Wright is correct to stand up to say that the other things he said about the U.S. and the particular brand of Zionism are correct. The U.S. has been terribly wrong to be the leading militant imperial power in the world while hiding behind lip service to democracy and freedom.

The U.S. has been about making the world capitalistic. It has been about raping and polluting the environment and exploiting workers. Also, the false-Zionists who pardon themselves with extreme rationalizations are definitely guilty of racism and ethnic bigotry. It is well documented directly from the mouths of their so-called founders. We have many of the quotes on this site. Search on the founder's name, and you will find the material.

The false-Zionists are wrong to imagine that their attack on Wright won't come back upon them. People are waking up to the racism and other immorality of Apartheid Israel. The truth is being poured out on Israel and the world. Just saying that telling the truth about Apartheid Israel is anti-Semitism isn't going to continue working. In fact, it is going to self-label those who resort to the ruse as nothing more than the hypocrites and phonies that they are.

There is no turning back now. The world is embarking upon ending covetousness and laissez-faire capitalism. Raping the planet is an abomination. It is grave sin. Standing against the voluntary giving-and-sharing, environmental economy is evil and will come back to haunt all who take that evil stance. Mark my words for they are truly prophetic.


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.