Thank people who came to the party early and bravely! "media consensus on Israel is collapsing"

The media consensus on Israel is collapsing -

Okay, I could make a huge list; I just want to make a quick point here.

"The media consensus on Israel is collapsing." ...part of the mainstream media.

Even Walt and Mearsheimer was alternative-news elaboration.

We don't exist. Only "names" exist. Only brands. The people who got the ball rolling with anti-Zionism don't count now that the demigods have spoken.

The article didn't mention... (Don't be offended if I don't mention you. These are just people who stand out in my mind -- people I saw over and over and over braving the verbal and other arrows of hyper-Zionists):

Illan Pappe, Alan Hart, Ali Abunimah, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Ken O'Keefe, Norman Finkelstein, George Galloway, the land convoys, Ann Wright, the Freedom Flotilla crowd, Karen Kwiatkowski, the Code Pink ladies, all the Palestinians, the BDS founders, and on and on.

He didn't even mention Jimmy Carter or Desmond Tutu.

I should think Erdogan deserves a mention now. You'll notice that the Zionists have toned it down against Ahmadinejad over holocaust-denial and misquoting Ahmadinejad. Juan Cole practically single-handedly ended the stupid, false claim that Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" militarily or otherwise.

Why though did I mention holocaust-denial? I mentioned it because, like it or not, many so-called holocaust revisionists have been given a bad rap. Plenty of the stuff they've published questioning the Zionists conspiracy-theory version of the concentration camps and other matters rings true.

For one, it's a fact that six million Jews did not die. The number one Jewish supposed expert on it, Raul Hilberg, said it was 5.1 (and his estimate has been proven to have been based upon the testimony of perjurers who were so bad and ridiculous that they were not allowed to continue embellishing their stories in court for fear on the part of the prosecution that the Zionists' case would be lost in world public opinion).

Then there's the huge issue of 9/11 and whether or to what degree it was an inside-neocon/Zionist/Israeli job. That's had a great deal to do with people waking up. Only idiots buy it that Building 7 came down due to office fires. It was a controlled demolition. I knew it the moment I saw it. Everyone who had ever seen one knew it. The only people who don't admit it was an inside job suffer from a huge case of cognitive dissonance. So, Alex Jones deserves a mention too along with Richard Gage. The 9/11 Truth Movement is so huge that the list of names of noted people who are part of it, people who have had significant impact upon how neocons/Zionists are viewed, would take the rest of my life to document; so, I name them as a group, but at least I name them.

The piece is better than nothing, mind you. It's well written, but I'm just disappointed in the J Street (moderate-Zionist) crap. I probably wouldn't have even written this if he had thrown the alternative media a bone.

Amy Goodman and Paul Jay have had on many, many people who have questioned Zionism and the Likudniks' treatment of their fellow human beings, the Palestinians, who are very closely related to them, as DNA has shown conclusively.

I'll probably kick myself for not having mentioned certain people, like I'm mentioning Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein at the end here, as if they haven't hammered at Zionism with the best of them. It's late, and I'm tired; but I just couldn't let this slip by.

The feeling I got when reading that article was that Salon wants to be held up there with the New York Times -- one of the elite publications. It felt like a snubbing. There are a few more names I could have named; but speaking of snubbing, I wasn't good enough -- in fact, I'm "disgusting" because I don't celebrate homosexuality. Well, some people are just too stupid to admit that penises don't belong up anuses, but that's another post.


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 Holocaust. Bookmark the permalink.