Tom Usher wrote or added | I just read this again. All "Christian-Zionists" should read it and re-read it until it sinks in.
"Israeli police had come in the night, dragged them from their beds and placed hoods over their heads. Then in jails the Israelis had kept them in isolation, besieged them with loud, incessant noises, hung them upside down and had sadistically mutilated their genitals. I had not read such stories in the U.S. media. Wasn't it news? Obviously, I naively thought, U.S. editors simply didn't know it was happening.
"I realized, quite painfully, that our friendship was ending. Iphigene Sulzberger had not only invited me to her home to meet her famous friends but, also at her suggestion, The Times had requested articles. I wrote op-ed articles on various subjects including American blacks, American Indians as well as undocumented workers. Since Mrs. Sulzberger and other Jewish officials at the Times highly praised my efforts to help these groups of oppressed peoples, the dichotomy became apparent: most "liberal" U.S. Jews stand on the side of all poor and oppressed peoples save one-the Palestinians.
"Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak, "are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become 'the Bible.' And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity."
"In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden.
"The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does-even wanton murder-as orchestrated by God."
Grace Halsell wrote this and many others years ago, and yet there are many of us just awakening, just learning, and we still don't know the half of the Z crimes.
A huge part of the crime is deluding Christians with the notion that Talmudic Judaism has anything to do with Christianity. Jesus and the Pharisees were at odds. It was the Pharisees, the Babylonian Talmudists, who lobbied the Roman Empires Procurator, Pontius Pilate, to have Jesus executed for speaking to the people about the hypocrisy and falsehoods taught by the then religious Zionists, the Pharisees.
There is no Judeo-Christianity except for the connection of Christianity with Torah and definitely not Talmud. Jesus was not Talmudic. He was anti-Talmud. This is barely mentioned anywhere.
The Pharisees were tricking the people so those Pharisees could be rich in mammon and powerful with the Empire while looking down upon the poor and downtrodden even when those poor and downtrodden spoke truth.
This part, Tom, is what I was taught as a child, and, of course, there has been much effort to rewrite this, and very loudly when Mel Gibson's The Passaion of the Christ was completed,:" It was the Pharisees, the Babylonian Talmudists, who lobbied the Roman Empires... Procurator, Pontius Pilate, to have Jesus executed for speaking to the people about the hypocrisy and falsehoods taught by the then religious Zionists, the Pharisees."
I know. It's amazing that it's right there in black and white in the Gospels; but the Zionists yell "blood libel" and such about it and claim that Jews had nothing to do with murdering Jesus but rather the Romans did it all from their own Roman thinking.
Have you seen the passages in the Talmud that are directed against Jesus? He's boiling in Hell in excrement according to the Talmudists, Religious Zionists.
Those are the same people who claim God gave them the land.
Mel Gibson has had his problems and I'm not pre- or post-Vatican II, but when he said that the Jews (and he meant only certain bankster types) have caused all the wars (at least since the Rothschild dynasty took over all Western economies) and when he recently had his public falling out with his current wife, he wasn't completely wrong on either score.
The Rothschilds have funded major wars on both sides. People in general are just ignorant about it. The huge portion of the Rothschilds' wealth was made "underground" to avoid taxes. That's documented. They've never been audited, just as their Federal Reserve has never been audited.
As for Mel's wife, if he hit her, he of course should not have; but she certainly did dress provocatively. Why he didn't think about that before he married her goes to show his confusion. In addition, I don't believe that he is a racist. Although there is a great deal of it in Australia, and I don't know how much of that he was raised with and/or carried out of there with him.
He has work to do, Christian work, and I hope he does it. I hope he overcomes whatever is tripping him up.
I haven't attempted to know everything about the case or to stay current on it. I'm completely against domestic violence and otherwise, whether it's the male or the female who starts it – and there are women who hit men, etc., before those women are hit. A man should take it and not hit back. If she won't quit, he should leave. If she keeps doing it, he should leave and not come back provided in my book, literally, he's done all the things he should per the Gospel. The same applies when it's the male hitting the female. Of course, it also all depends upon the seriousness of the hitting. Some people can kill with one hit. There are also weapons to consider too. Sometimes leaving before and never coming back is right. I leave it to the Holy Spirit to move individuals to know when. May God guide everyone to peace.
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)