USS Liberty Memorial

Source: www.gtr5.com
    -

http://www.gtr5.com/

"Anti-Semitism and the Anti-American Apologists

"The USS Liberty Memorial web site abhors the racist and extreme positions taken by antiSemitic, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theorist and other such groups which often seek to identify with us and to usurp our story as their own. We have no connection with and do not support or encourage support from any of these groups including National Alliance, National Vanguard, The New Order, National Socialists, The French Connection, Liberty Lobby, American Free Press, Republic Broadcasting, USS Liberty Radio Hour, Storm Front or other such groups. We wish harm to no one and encourage social justice and equality for everyone; we seek only accountability for the criminal acts perpetrated against us and can do that without help from hate-mongers.

"On the Israeli side, the group of pro-Israel, anti-American critics of our story, while small [?], persists in launching loud, vicious ad hominem attacks on anyone who attempts to discuss the deliberateness of the attack. These anti-American apologists refuse to discuss the facts of the case. Instead, they rely on propaganda and charge anyone who questions the Israeli position with being antiSemitic."

That's a powerful, clear message with two exceptions as follows:

1) Where I added "[?]" above at "small"

and

2) linking to le.com/articles/view/38058, which is a blanket condemnation of every aspect of the 9/11 Truth Movement and as if everyone in it is anti-Jew, which is far from the case.

The article engages in "guilt by association" (without any qualifying language) when many 9/11 Truthers have never endorsed Willis Carto and never would.

The article does exactly what the USS Liberty Memorial cite (http://www.gtr5.com/) complains about when coming from a "group of pro-Israel, anti-American critics," as if Steve Shives hasn't engaged in "vicious ad hominem attacks on anyone who attempts to discuss the deliberateness of the attack [by neocon-Zionist on 9/11]. These anti-American apologists refuse to discuss the facts of the case. Instead, they rely on propaganda and charge anyone who questions the Israeli [Mossad and official U.S. government] position with being antiSemitic."

My impression is that the USS Liberty Memorial cite has caved into pressure from the Jewish ADL and erred on the side of denouncing the 9/11 Truth Movement in total.

Hypocrisy is what I see going on there.

Let me also add that "holocaust denial" is thrown around way too loosely. Absolutely, all figures concerning how many people died by extermination at the hands of the Nazis are estimates. The estimates vary. Some questions have been raised that should be addressed. Lies have been told on both sides. The fat of Jews was not rendered into soap for instance. People have made clear challenges to certain claims by the Zionists, which claims could easily be refuted with little effort if the claims are ill-founded, such as where is there sufficient ash and bone fragment buried and detectable via ground censoring to account for the estimated incinerated bodies at the camps. I think that if these claims are false on either side, the matter calmly and officially should be settled by a team consisting of people on both sides.

This "holocaust denial" issue is attempting to be used to create a category of people known as "9/11 deniers" who are to be dismissed before the questions surrounding 9/11 have been answered. That's evil. After all, it's not as if the neocon-Zionists weren't caught lying through their teeth about (among many, many other things) using white phosphorus on the Gazans. If they can lie about one thing, they can lie about another and another and another and another.    

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.