Murdoch is more so oil-sponsored and Zionist, the false type of Zionism including Christian Zionism. Rupert Murdoch claims to profess Jesus. What a joke that is!

GE is electric and large-gizmo oriented.

That doesn't explain who they both are in total, but it goes a long way. Oil doesn't like nuclear and vice versa. GE is weapons. All are extremely rich. All compete. Each though needs the Empire. The Empire needs oil and nuclear and weapons, etc.; hence the order from on high to "get along better in front of the children." Get along better, Keith Olbermann (NBC; MSNBC) and Bill O'Reilly. This was delivered via (Public Broadcasting System) PBS's Charlie Rose for public consumption — perception management. The children are the self-styled neocon and self-styled libertarian and self-styled liberal dupes. The real populists aren't fooled.

So, Olbermann was ordered to stop negatively criticizing O'Reilly. Olbermann has been censored by the dark side, not that he isn't in the dark himself. The evil system was worked by the spirit of Satan operating within Bill O'Reilly to protect the Evil Empire's building in the Middle East against the smaller evil empires there. Yes, the violently coercive, dictatorial clerics in Iran are evil as are the Saudi Royal Family and the Likudniks in Israel, etc.

The so-called libertarians rail against vaccines and biotech and the idea of excessive carbon burning {manmade climate change and unmitigated (no chemtrails, etc.) global warming from oil burning} as a problem, but they don't connect chemistry and pharmaceuticals and various forms of pollution with oil companies. They don't connect that with weapons. Wake up dupes! Wake up, Alex Jones!

The world bankers and international financiers control the money — mammon. They are all rich in money. Money buys them everything except God. Money is an evil system that came out from evil minds. Money in every form including gold as a medium of exchange is going to Hell.

It's interesting and somewhat shocking to me that a NYT article wouldn't even mention the effect on the hosts' journalistic freedom. . . . I assume that both Olbermann and O'Reilly would not have agreed to the truce, as the battle is ratings gold for both of them, and I'm sure they frankly hate each other and enjoy it.

The sad truth is that what Olbermann and O'Reilly were doing in this particular instance was one of the rare examples of good journalism on these types of shows. Olbermann was holding O'Reilly's feet to the fire about his repeated falsehoods and embarrassing positions. In turn, O'Reilly was giving the public accurate and disturbing information about General Electric, including extensive technology dealings with Iran. In my personal opinion, this was one of the rare useful pieces of information O'Reilly ever presented to his audience, and Olbermann was there to show how lousy the rest of O'Reilly's information was. Though it was in the context of a bitter feud, the two men were actually engaging in real journalism, at least in this case.

That's from August 2, 2009, "GE's silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's sleazy use of Richard Wolffe," by Glenn Greenwald. OpEdNews and

It's interesting that OpEdNews republishes Greenwald's article about corporate censorship while it censored me over an article on homosexuality for being politically incorrect. I used the term bugger and said that the act is in effect offensive. Google (major, pro-homosexuality corporation) also recently censored me about homosexuality.


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.