Many Jews in America are thoroughly trained Zionists. Many are trying to come off as the J Streeters are trying. J Street, as you may know, is a lobby of "moderate" and "liberal" Zionist Jews in the U.S.

I don't like it ore buy it because it is still Zionist.

Goldstone (of the famous Goldstone Report to the U.N.) is a good example of the type. He's a Zionist even though he condemned his fellows for what they did.

It just makes them mad that I won't cut any slack for the Zionist Project. It never should have been, and it is all the more terrible for the holocaust and the late date in the world for such old-school hyper-nationalism.

There is no moderating or liberalizing it. The Zionist Project is illegal. They declared their so-called independence before the U.N. actually blessed them, not that, that would have been "constitutional," so to speak. It wouldn't have, as it would have been a clear violation of the U.N. Charter that also was written to protect the Palestinians from just such land grabbing.


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.
    • Almost all Jews (about 98%)are Zionists. If you hate Zionists, then you hate Jews. That doesn't sound very "Chriatian" to me. Or (in a more frightening sense) it does sound very "Christian." More Jews were murdered in the name of Christ during the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition than in the Holocaust. That makes Christianity more evil than Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. So, Tom, when you openly despise Zionists, you despise your own "Christ" (who called himself "rabbi") and every other person throughout history who has been proud to call himself or herself a Jew.

      You can select a handful of Jewish writers who are against Zionism, just as I can find a handful of Christians who hate the Church, or a handful of Muslim writers who hate their faith, or a handful of Hindus who hate their faith. That proves nothing. Citing Chomsky makes your point against Zionism no more powerful than citing the words of Hitler or Stalin against Christianity. The evil scerpent is the one who twists words into a hateful message. I see this clearly here, on this site. You combine the words, "wicked, evil, Satan, homosexuality, Jew, Zionism, Israelis and butchers together into one swift hateful message. The scerpent has a forked tongue, as do your messages.

      [See also: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2009/10...]

      • Chuck,

        I took the liberty of changing the URL you submitted to http://jacobscourage.wordpress.com/ from your email address. I suppose this site upsets you so much that in your state of mind, you entered your email address that I assume you were not intending to publish to the world here. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Maybe you did intend it, or maybe you intended to test me about it because the site says your email address won't be given out (except pursuant to a real court order).

        I don't have time to address every point you've attempted to make here in the detail I'd like. I have pressing deadlines to meet. However, I didn't want to delay approving your comment but also didn't want it hanging out there without a reply.

        As for your statistic that "Almost all Jews (about 98%)are Zionists," that would largely depend upon how "Zionist" is define in any survey. I am a Zionist when the proper connotation is applied. Jesus was the consummate Zionist if one grasps the meaning of Zion from the whole trending of scripture.

        There are many more anti- and post-Zionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Zionism) Jews than I think you care to admit. Where do you fall on the spectrum? How hardcore Likudnik are you, or are you inclined toward the J Streeters at all? Do you consider Richard Goldstone (a Zionist; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_...) to have suddenly become a "self-hating" Jew in the sense that term is used by the hardcore, Jabotinsky, terrorist types?

        See: AMAZING JEWS PROTESTING WORLD ZIONIST ORGANIZATION IN NEW YORK http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2009/02...

        Furthermore, I don't hate you. I love you. However, unbeknownst to you, I believe that all humans have a love/hate relationship with each other. That is clearly Christian to those who bother to examine the New Testament Gospels.

        "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:43-44)

        At the same time, we have the following that is reconcilable, has to be, with it:

        "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

        I grant you that it throws people. That's only because they don't bother to ponder and to sort it out. I've bothered and sorted.

        Also, people are what they do. That's why Jesus expects us to hate our histories even while loving one another enough to tell each other and to support one another as we rise out of historical confusion. If you will read Jesus with an eye to discovering the deepest, profoundest, but yet plainest and clearest truths, you'll get it - at least a great deal more of it than you get now.

        The fact that you've written, "If you hate Zionists, then you hate Jews. That doesn't sound very "Chriatian" to me. Or (in a more frightening sense) it does sound very 'Christian,'" shows me that you are not completely incapable of thinking along these lines. You see that there are Christians and then there are Christians. You see that those who did the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were not doing the will of our father in Heaven or the will of Jesus, which is the same will.

        If you will search this site, you'll find that I've had running arguments with Roman Catholics concerning both the Crusades and Inquisition, in which arguments I firmly rebuked the Roman Catholic Popes responsible and prevailed in the so-called debate.

        See: PART 7: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: SOME MORE OF WHY I'M NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2009/01...

        Then do a browser text-search on "Crusade." Do the same on this linked post as well:



        You do realize how many non-Jews were murdered as well, right? Have you seen how many Christian martyrs there have been down through the ages? I suggest to you that more Christians have died for seeking to follow Jesus's non-violent message than Jews have died since Christ for seeking to follow Judaism. Of course, Jewishness is deliberately open for debate. Jews argue it more than do non-Jews, as I'm sure you are aware.

        At the same time, you wrote, "More Jews were murdered in the name of Christ during the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition than in the Holocaust. That makes Christianity more evil than Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany."

        Now, that shows that in the next breath, you went from awareness that those who carry out offense are not truly Christian to that they are. That's where you should correct your position. Stand solely for defining Christianity as Jesus's message is that definition. In doing so, you will go much further in making the world safer and more secure for Jews, for real Christians can never kill Jews.

        What I openly despise are the things I've said I openly despise. What I secretly despise, by the way, is exactly the same thing. You should despise what I despise also. Why don't you despise the Nakba? What's not to despise? I also despise suicide bombing and glorified bottle rockets that can main and even kill if they land in close enough proximity to unshielded human beings.

        Let me help you some more, Chuck, even at the risk of helping a possible forever-scorner. Jesus didn't call himself rabbi.

        "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." (Matthew 23:8)

        Now, that may sound redundant to you since Rabbi means Master; however, it is incumbent upon you constantly to reconcile:

        "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." (John 15:15)

        By now, you should have a burning desire to know more about the real Jesus. In fact, if your heart is right, you will learn and become a Christian without any shame and come what may.

        I am a Jew, again, if you use the proper understanding derived from scripture. A real Jew is the spirit of Judah who repented to Joseph. Think about it. Think about that Jacob, their father, still saw things that both of his sons were missing even after they had reconciled. Remember how Jacob repented to his brother. That story is universal throughout existence, Chuck. It's meant for you and me as brothers that is fellow human beings. It's why the real temple isn't the stone building but the whole of existence and God is the God of all.

        The only problem is lack of focus.

        You can select a handful of Jewish writers who are against Zionism, just as I can find a handful of Christians who hate the Church, or a handful of Muslim writers who hate their faith, or a handful of Hindus who hate their faith. That proves nothing.

        Your premises ignore the content of their speech and writings and doings. I don't select all the speech and writings and doings of those I've ever cited. I sort.

        You mention Noam Chomsky. Noam grasps the mundane morality of Jesus but not the spirituality. Hence, he lacks the divine morality. He was also a Zionists and still is on a certain level. He was raised to believe that there is a political Zionism that is secular and decidedly not in line with Jabotinsky. He was naive.

        Herzl knew better. Herzl knew that horning in and out would be the results. He concluded that it would be worth it. He masked his real belief behind false-propaganda. It has ever been so. The Likudniks do it now, and they rule Israel. The saving spirit of Jesus obviously does not.

        Chomsky gets credit from me for at least being able to see that Jesus's way is vastly superior. Why he has a problem with the spirit is something you'll have to take up with him. It's his greatest failure.

        The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, whether you want to call it that or something else, did happen and it was wrong and remains wrong and happened largely after Hitler, when we as the vast majority of our species had supposedly vowed that such would not be allowed again.

        Do I want a Jewish nation-state for Jews? Do I want one for Anglo-Saxons? If the Arabs need be at best second-class citizens of Israel, then let the Anglo-Saxons do the same to the Rothschilds and all "Jews" in England. I am not for it, and I am consistent about it. People do not have the God-given right to horn into a territory to horn out others.

        As for non-coercive voluntary associations, that's a different matter. Jesus cleaned the temple, and I'm completely reconciled with it. I understand what he was doing and why and agree. I understand the difference between God and Satan. I'm no atheist or agnostic.

        Ilan Pappe's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians) work concerning Zionism cannot rightly be seen as analogous with "Hitler or Stalin against Christianity." Ilan has been seeking and revealing real facts. Hitler especially is noted for doing quite the opposite. Hitler also felt that he was doing to Jews what Jews do. Of course, he was a real anti-Jew. He was prejudiced against all Jews as it suited him. He was an inconsistent mess. He had many Jews in high places, as I've mentioned. People call him an evil genius. He was a moral idiot, which means he was exceptionally stupid.

        The evil scerpent is the one who twists words into a hateful message. I see this clearly here, on this site. You combine the words, "wicked, evil, Satan, homosexuality, Jew, Zionism, Israelis and butchers together into one swift hateful message. The scerpent has a forked tongue, as do your messages.

        Now, if you can still hold with that characterization of me after what I've written here directly to you, then I know you are disingenuous.

        Furthermore, I am a relativist. I do not lump all offenses together as equal. That's the position of the Pauline Fundamentalists of whom I have never been and never will be. There are different levels of pain and suffering brought on by different levels of evil feelings, thoughts, words, and deeds. Clearly, there are Jews who are not unrepentant homosexuals, Zionists (in the Jabotinsky sense), or butchers.

        In addition, you are not practicing what you preach. You clearly "hate" my message and me for it. I understand though that you have been unable (unwilling actually) to follow the logic. To follow the logic leads to implications that frightens you since they would mean becoming closer to Ilan Pappe in the beginnings of open truth-telling. It would also lead to Jesus, and that scares you since you put everything else before him and his father and mine.

        You must work much harder at crafting your speech, Chuck. Otherwise, you wittingly bear false witness.

        I take it that you are pro-homosexual in addition to excusing unrepentant, violent, terrorist, ethnic cleansers. Are you a homosexual?

        Chuck, you need to overcome your ethnocentricity. "My country right or wrong" is wrong. "My particular, human DNA tribe or tribes right or wrong" is wrong. "My Zion right or wrong" is wrong. Only right is right.

        Between us, who has done the twisting here? Not I.

        If you wanted to remain engaged with me (discussing matters), why then did you un-friend me on Facebook and elsewhere and also block me? I should think that doing that speaks much about the disposition of your heart.

        Also, why didn't you comment after http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2009/10... on the same post? Why did you switch over here? I decided to cross-reference your comments in straight brackets within those comments

        Soften up, Chuck, before you are tempted to become a butcher hunting those who profess the total-pacifist message of Jesus Christ, as I do. We've been hunted and martyred down through the centuries including by the spirit of Zionism. The Talmudic, Pharisaic Jews hunted us, imprisoned us, and murdered us long before the Inquisition was even thought of, or do you not even believe the confessions of Paul about this. You don't buy the Babylonian Talmud do you? For the sake of your soul, I hope not.

        Why do you hate Jesus, your fellow Jew and the best person you've ever heard of?

        Peace and the blessing of God upon you, Charles Weinblatt,

        Tom Usher

    • Tom, Tom, Tom... I don't "hate Jesus." Where did you get that idea? I have absolutely no belief, like, dislike or emotion for him (if he actualy existed). For Jews, the real messiah has not yet arrived. So, we continue to wait.

      I am concerned that you fail to discern any semblance of the reality of Israel. The land that Israel occupies is land that Jews occupied 1,500 years before Mohammad and 2,000 years before Palestinians came into existence. The only non-Jews living there when Jews arrived from the exile from Egypt were Cananites. Cananites have no living decendents. So, Jews have every right to occupy and defend the same land that they occupied during the kingdoms of David and Saul. Contemporary Palestinians have only the most recent place in this story.

      Israel has been attacked repeatedly since it was created by the UN in 1948. Each time, the nascent Jewish stste survived. Sometimes, they even gained land. Again, this land was a part of the roiginal Jewish nation (see King David). The enemies of Israel focus their attacks not upon Israel Defense Forces (IDF), but upon innocent civilians, primarily women and children - on busses, trains, in restaurants, shopping malls and in religious ceremonies. The enemies of Israel use suicide bombs, rockets, mortars, snipers and even bulldozers, to murder innocent Jewish civilians.

      The enemies of Israel (Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah) all have open charters that call for the complrete destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. There are English translations available throughout the Internet. So, tell me, who has a better claim upon the Holy Land, Jews, who occupied it centuries before modern-day Muslims, or Palestinians, who in the course of human history, arrived yesterday?

      The IDF always tempers their response to terrorism. Suicide bombers are attacked, not innocent civilians. Unfortunately, the suicide bombers hide behind the inncoent civilians. But, the IDF has a responsibility to make Israelis safe. They do so with the least collateral damage possible.

      Jews are Zionists. I'll say this again. Jews are Zionists. I challenge you to prove that more than 5% of the Jewish people are not Zionists. Not all of us agree with every decision made by every government of Israel. But, virtually all of us agree that Israel's enemies will stop at nothing to destroy every Jew in the ME.

      How would you defend your family if it were attacked on a daily basis by those who wished to kill them? How would you defend your legal (and ancient) home from those who wish to take it from your family? What would you do if someone bombed your home, launched rockets at it and tried to murder your family? How much "restraint" would you use?

      I am a liberal Jew. I've always been liberal. I might not agree with each and every government decision made by Israel. But, I will leave you with one final thought. Israel has never expressed the desire to attack or occupy any nation. But, virtually every nation that surrounds Israel has pledged to destroy it and to murder the Jews who live there. Which side has the moral high road?

      • Hi Chuck,

        Okay, so you say you don't hate Jesus; but in Christian terms, in New Testament scriptural terms, you do. You'll have to read it to find that out. It's right there in the text – clear and plain. As for your not believing he existed, how do explain the Talmud talking about him?

        Canaanites have no living descendants you claim. That's not true. Besides, the Canaanites were not the only ones there. The area was on the direct route between Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia.

        Look, the word Palestine is the English transliteration from the Hebrew root: פּלשׁ. I haven't done a deep etymological study on it, but it means rolling or to roll.

        פלשׁת׃ ישׁבי אחז חיל ירגזון עמים שׁמעו (Exodus 15:14)

        The last word in that verse is Palestina. It includes Philistia (after the Philistines). The Palestinians still refer to the area as Philistia. The Old Testament says the Philistines were there when Abraham was there. Now, the Israelites did wipe people out, but they did not wipe out everyone – at least the Bible says they didn't – and you have nothing else on which to base your claims to the land. Yes, I believe the Israelites were there and that there is archeological evidence. That's not where I take issue. I take issue, as you know, with the methods of moving back into the area. I'm not even raising the issues about the Khazars and so forth. I believe that all the Khazars-talk has been overblown even there is some truth to it.

        Also, the Arabs were all over the place then too even if you don't believe that everyone was interrelated to some degree.

        You sound as if you've bought into the nonsense of "a land without a people for a people without a land." The Zionist knew that was hogwash before it was ever spread about. They sent people to the area who reported back that the "bride is beautiful, but she's taken" or words to that effect. Didn't you know that?

        Also, Israel was not created by the UN in 1948. The final required vote was never even taken. Israel unilaterally announced its independence. Besides, the UN in 1948 was just the WWII imperial victor's to do with what it wanted on a mundane level. Did the Israelites have the right to go into Canaan and attempt to exterminate all the peoples: Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites? Did the Syrians and Babylonians and Greeks and Romans have the right to attack and remove the Israelites? So, do the Jews have the right to horn in and ethnically clean the area of Palestinians or those who were there when the Zionists report that the land was occupied?

        How do you not stand up for the truth on this matter just because you're talking about fellow Jews? The Anglo-Saxons are the ones most responsible for "giving" the area over to the Zionists, I'm Anglo-Saxon, and I don't condone what the Anglo-Saxons did regarding the Zionists and many other things.

        As for the violent-resistance tactics you cited, history proves that the Zionists were being terrorists long before the first Palestinian suicide bomber. You know full well that Zionists attacked Palestinian villages and mercilessly slaughtered many of the survivors of which ran away from the well-organized terrorism. Then, the Zionists leveled hundreds of villages.

        As for Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and others, they are full of words that they would all retract if the Zionists were not bent upon nationalism based upon even a shaky definition of "Jew." Look, the original Jewish Charter is the Old Testament Torah. It calls for exterminating peoples, as I've mentioned above. Do you stand on that? You denounce it, don't you? So, you've changed, but you aren't willing to grant that others can back off. Look at Iran and the Jews living there. They have been allowed to leave the whole time, but they stay. There are Iranians who chant death to the Jews. The whole Middle East is ripe with bluster. "The Mother of All Wars" was a ridiculous thing for Saddam to have ever said. Who didn't know it? He knew it. It's a style thing, a cultural thing, to overstate what will happen if attacks occur. Iran is doing it now. Yes, they'd fight back, but there is no way they could make good on the vast majority of their claims. If they destroyed one US city and the US knew they were the ones who had done it, there wouldn't be an Iran as we know it.

        As for the least collateral damage possible, you have read the statement of IDF soldiers who reported that they were ordered to not concern themselves with that. How can you then write here that the IDF was so careful?

        Look, I looked into the whole thing in great detail. I know when the "rockets" were fired versus when there were huge lulls (a deal) and why. I know who took advantage of that lull, planning, blockading, still coming into the area destroying businesses and homes, etc. It was the Israelis. The Zionists did not want to build upon the lull, and you know it.

        How can I prove that more than 5% of Jews are not Zionists? It would depend upon how the terms are defined. If you are right that 95%-plus of world Jewry is in favor of the attack on Gaza and those Jews know what I'm saying here about the history (much of it documented by Israelis in Israel – the "New Historians"), then shame on them. 95% certainly wouldn't make the endeavor correct. Popularity is no guarantee of deep righteousness. It's usually the exact opposite.

        You asked me how much restraint I'd use. I converted to Christianity in my late forties. I wasn't a Christian before because I didn't have the guts to take it on one cheek and turn the other. I was a fighter. How much restraint would I show? I'd take up the cross rather than take up the machine gun. Which do you think is harder?

        I believe in God, Charles. I believe in the resurrection of the just. Refusing to kill the killers even of one's own children is not wrong. It's having faith in the ultimate righteousness of the Creator of existence.

        Chuck, I don't understand how you can think the way you do. Zionism is not a "high moral road." The high moral road is pacifism. The high moral road is returning good for evil. It's giving and sharing.

        The members of Hamas do not hate those of the Israelis who protest the destruction of Palestinian homes in the "Green Zones" and who help Palestinians rebuild or harvest or whatever.

        I'm trying to be as patient here as possible. I know you know I'm right about all of this. I know you are afraid to change because of the networking you have with the Jewish community. Well, that's up to you. I see Jews who stand up against all the evil to the best of their understanding. I think they are light years ahead of you, Chuck. You could get to know some of them you know.

        Anyway, I meant what I said about blessing you.



        • "It is the right of the Lebanese people, Army and the [Hezbollah led-]Resistance to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba Hills and the northern part of the village of Ghajar as well as to defend Lebanon and its territorial waters in the face of any enemy by all available and legal means." -- Policy Declaration of the new Government of the Republic of Lebanon, issued on November 26, 2009
          Source: http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/12/29/nima-shi...

          That article is full of information you should digest, Chuck.