FRANK LUNTZ IS BEHIND THE MORONIC ROLL OUT OF THE JUDENREIN IDEA TO DEFEND ISRAELI COLONIES: ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS

FRANK LUNTZ IS BEHIND THE MORONIC ROLL OUT OF THE JUDENREIN IDEA TO DEFEND ISRAELI COLONIES: ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS

UNBELIEVABLE: NETANYAHU TERMS LEAVING THE ILLEGAL JEWISH-ONLY SETTLEMENTS (COLONIES) IN PALESTINE "JUDENREIN," MEANING ETHNIC CLEANSING OF JEWS

They actually pay Frank Luntz for his moronic ideas. Look at this: "Chosen Words: A pollster's recommendations on how to sell Americans on the idea of Israeli settlements," by Dan Ephron. Newsweek. Jul 10, 2009.

This is just amazingly stupid on Luntz's part. Look, he's trying to equate Palestinians in Israel with Jewish occupiers in the West Bank of Palestine. Okay, so what's he saying, that when there are two states, all those settlements with Jews living in them will be under Palestinian Arab control? Why have a two-state solution then? Why not combine Palestine and Israel as one secular state? Oops! (as the children say). The Arabs are having more children than are the Israelis. The Arabs would quickly be the majority in a democracy. The "Jewish" state wouldn't be Jewish anymore. Brilliant Frank, brilliant, how much did they pay you for that? Give them back their money and repent you greedy....

Of course, they really should have one state. The whole would is really one. It will be, and it will end up not being the New World Order of the bankers. They lose.

So, the Jews ethnically cleansed huge swaths of Palestine of Arabs, but now they are going to cry foul at having to withdraw to the pre-1967-war borders, a war the Israelis, not the Arabs started by the way, as openly admitted by former and now dead Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. (So don't deny it!)

The settlements are segregated zones. How many Palestinian Arabs live in the settlements? The settlements are ethnically cleansed zones for Jews only. Yet, here you have these monstrous lies being put forth to sway Americans. The colonies are interconnected by Jewish-only roads. No Arabs allowed. How ironic can it get? How hypocritical can a so-called pollster be?

Frank Luntz, you have sold your soul to the devil. Repent!

Now, who can't see the clear collaboration of American Jewish Zionists with the Likud, since Benjamin Netanyahu has rolled out the use of this Nazi Judenrein notion? This is just a smaller version of the holocaust industry.

Luntz and his ilk try to suck America into more evil than America would get into otherwise, which is too much to begin with.

Look at that title: how to sell Americans on the idea of Israeli settlements. It should be "how to attempt to trick Americans on the idea of Israeli settlements and fall flat on your face."

It is long since time that the U.S. decouple from this Anglo-American-Israeli Empire. Having fascist liars as allies makes America a fascistic, lying state.

Find Christ, Frank. You're lost and in the dark. You aren't a star. You're dull, not even one candlepower.

Donate


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.