If Israel were eating babies alive, would the US still support them?

Tom Usher wrote or added | Well, 98%+ of this has been widely substantiated. The remaining 2 or so % could probably be mostly substantiated. We might have some people arguing that some of the things aren't Zionist state-sponsored. For the Zionists' sake, I hope that's true, although I won't be holding my breath.

We might struggle getting enough hard-evidence for the tiny bit of the rest unless we could have unfettered access to witnesses in Palestine and elsewhere, but the Zionists and their sympathizer/accomplices around the world have seen to it that, that's nearly impossible even for billionaires.

The young man has a number of very valid points. I think he cares deeply about his fellow humans and would not be found to be anti-Jew, per se. He's clearly anti-Zionist, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, to be real, it's required.

Noah Anthony Russell

Chaos..israel sounds unorganized and chaotic. why does the U.S support them?

Tom Usher

So-called Christian Zionism goes way back to before the English Civil War.

The flipside included that Jews in general were not allowed to be in the trades. They became expert in what was left: merchandizing and money changing/banking. They'd almost always been into those. The Pharisees had major problems with Jesus over it.

Banking opened the door for governmental administration. Add too all of that, America's secularism, mixed economy where full-blown socialism is feared (Cold War), and America's combined imperialistic spirit and anti-rival/potential rival spirit translated into anti-pan-Islam, and you have the Zionists Project in the form of Israel as a colonial enterprise of the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire in the Middle East.

The imperialists in the US have never had a problem with supporting fascists, racists, and dictators, etc., so long as they were/are "our" fascists/racists/dictators. It was excused as expedient during the Cold War. Afterall, the gulags were seen as every bit as bad as, or worst than, anything the American elitists ever did or do.

After the Cold War, some Zionists thought that things would be able to change so that the US wouldn't support bad regimes anymore. It didn't happen because their former allies always had ulterior motives.

It pays not to be naive and gullible. The problem with it is that in order to get there, one has had to go through the process of losing one's guileless condition. Let that be a lesson to you, Noah. Bypass falling and jump right to the non-naive and non-gullible state. I wish I had. It's still better late than never. I'm still paying for it though.

Understand that being anti-Zionists doesn't mean the enemy of your "enemy" (as real Christians, the Zionists look upon us as their worst enemy) is your friend. Others whom the Zionists call enemy could also hate us for speaking and working to do real truth and also think of us as their arch enemy. We love them or we wouldn't bother speaking that truth. They don't want to see it that way though.

We go to the cross over it if needs be.

Peace to you, brother,



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.