NEOCONS AND SELF-STYLED ZIONIST-CHRISTIANS

Let me repeat what originated with me from the Holy Spirit. You can't delegitimize what wasn't legitimate in the first place. Please repeat it. Attribution will be appreciated.

First off, I'll be amazed if Google doesn't censor this from their Blog Search results. It appears that if I (others are allowed to) mention either Zionism or homosexuality (or the like) in the title of an article, the article is automatically filtered out of the Blog Search results. It shows up in regular Google search results though (very tricky from a corporation that complains about China's censorship). (http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?client=news&um=1&cf=b&hl=en&q=Zionism) [It made it in. The Google filters are difficult to discern looking at them from the outside in with so little to go on. Perhaps "Zionist" is allowed in titles from me. Maybe they've lifted the block on "Zion..." from me. It's a moving target. They don't reveal their hand or communicate directly but only through search results.]

I had the following to say to a Neocon, self-styled Zionist-Christian on Facebook:

You are a Zionist, right? You're here because you want to argue about Israel's legitimacy. Do you have all the comebacks ready?

Katherine [last name deleted] used the terms "Jews," but you took that and made it a sweeping statement against all Jews. You didn't ask her if she's against the Jews, per se.

There are many Jews who don't like the Zionism that has shown forth in Israel. They know that the Palestinians, and especially right now the Gazans, have been just brutalized.

Do you defend the brutalization that has gone on? Do you defend the war crimes? Do you really believe that Jews calling themselves Zionists should have gone to Palestine and done what they have done: All the ethnic cleansing (extremely well-documented and admitted to by more and more Jews in Israel and around the world); all the destruction of villages; all the uprooting of even ancient, beautiful, food bearing olive trees; the taking over of ancient homes; the dumping of raw sewage; the imprisonment of tens of thousands; the clandestine development of nuclear weapons; the imprisonment of whistleblowers; and on and on and on?

Are you going to give a list of what the Palestinians did and are doing in reaction to all of that and claim that, that's your justification? Are you going to ask what we or I would do if rockets were being fired?

I didn't kill anyone, steal anyone's land or home, uproot anyone's livelihood, torture anyone, imprison anyone with or without benefit of trial, assassinate anyone, or spray white phosphorus on anyone (Shall I go on?) ...or drop millions of cluster bomblets on anyone. Shall I go on? Would you like to discuss the U.S.S. Liberty? Would you like to discuss the Zionists who were dancing in eye shot of the smoking Twin Towers? Would you like to discuss the tens of thousands of Jews in Hitler's military? Shall I go on?

You have your list, but we and I have lists too.

Here's what could have happened that didn't. The Jews could have moved into the area with no plan for a "Jewish" state but just to live as good neighbors: helpful, peaceful, understanding, compassionate, and all the other things that would disprove all of the real anti-Semites, anti-Jews, out there. Thank God there are Jews who do prove those anti-Jews wrong.

Now, you're a neocon-Zionist who is doing what has been called for under the Zionist directive, which is to go into every area on the Internet and argue for Zionism to wear down the opposition. However, let me explain that the more you do that, the more obnoxious.

You see, you really only have one right and ultimately workable course. You must repent of all the wickedness you've done to the Palestinian people who weren't and aren't perfect but who never deserved what you, the Christian [not]- and Jewish-Zionists and not all Jews, have done to them. In addition, you must atone. You must remove your Apartheid Wall. You must do everything in your power to make the Palestinians whole. That's right. I said you're not a Christian.

Do those things, and the world will sing your praises. Continued down your current path of taking more and more land and building more and more housing on that land and for Jews only, and watch the world devour them and you too, self-styled Christian-Zionist. It's happened before in Jewish history. You know the drill. It is written.

Peace, and may God bless the Jewish people with truth that is peace,

Tom Usher

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.
    • Lou Norman

      (Came across this web bit)

      PRETRIB RAPTURE POLITICS

      Many are still unaware of the eccentric, 180-year-old British theory underlying the politics of American evangelicals and Christian Zionists.

      Journalist and historian Dave MacPherson has spent more than 40 years focusing on the origin and spread of what is known as the apocalyptic "pretribulation rapture" - the inspiration behind Hal Lindsey's bestsellers of the 1970s and Tim LaHaye's today.

      Although promoters of this endtime evacuation from earth constantly repeat their slogan that "it's imminent and always has been" (which critics view more as a sales pitch than a scriptural statement), it was unknown in all official theology and organized religion before 1830.

      And MacPherson's research also reveals how hostile the pretrib rapture view has been to other faiths:

      It is anti-Islam. TV preacher John Hagee has been advocating "a pre-emptive military strike against Iran." (Google "Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism.")

      It is anti-Jewish. MacPherson's book "The Rapture Plot" (see Armageddon Books etc.) exposes hypocritical anti-Jewishness in even the theory's foundation.

      It is anti-Catholic. Lindsey and C. I. Scofield are two of many leaders who claim that the final Antichrist will be a Roman Catholic. (Google "Pretrib Hypocrisy.")

      It is anti-Protestant. For this reason no major Protestant denomination has ever adopted this escapist view.

      It even has some anti-evangelical aspects. The first publication promoting this novel endtime view spoke degradingly of "the name by which the mixed multitude of modern Moabites love to be distinguished, - the Evangelical World." (MacPherson's "Plot," p. 85)

      Despite the above, MacPherson proves that the "glue" that holds constantly in-fighting evangelicals together long enough to be victorious voting blocs in elections is the same "fly away" view. He notes that Jerry Falwell, when giving political speeches just before an election, would unfailingly state: "We believe in the pretribulational rapture!"

      In addition to "The Rapture Plot," MacPherson's many internet articles include "Famous Rapture Watchers," "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "America's Pretrib Rapture Traffickers," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," "Pretrib Rapture Secrecy" and "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" (massive plagiarism, phony doctorates, changing of early "rapture" documents in order to falsely credit John Darby with this view, etc.!).

      Because of his devastating discoveries, MacPherson is now No. 1 on the "hate" list of pretrib rapture leaders!

      There's no question that the leading promoters of this bizarre 19th century end-of-the-world doctrine are solidly pro-Israel and necessarily anti-Palestinian. In light of recently uncovered facts about this fringe-British-invented belief which has always been riddled with dishonesty, many are wondering why it should ever have any influence on Middle East affairs.

      This Johnny-come-lately view raises millions of dollars for political agendas. Only when scholars of all faiths begin to look deeply at it and widely air its "dirty linen" will it cease to be a power. It is the one theological view no one needs!

      With apologies to Winston Churchill - never has so much deception been foisted on so many by so few!

      [Also Google "David Letterman's Hate, Etc."]