What do you think of George Galloway?

I like reading Media Lens. Here, they are defending George Galloway and the left in general, against New Labour (British spelling) and neocons, etc.

Read the whole Media Lens article. There's plenty of food for thought -- more on that below.

George Galloway's stunning victory in last week's Bradford West by-election afforded a rare opportunity to witness naked imbalance, establishment scorn of any challenges, and blatant anti-Muslim propaganda in the corporate British media.

via Alerts.

So, my title is: "What do you think of George Galloway?" So, what do I think of him? I've read him. I watched scores of hours of him on the Internet. Here's my brief take.

I agree with him about 90+% of the time. Where I leave off or am not sure due to not hearing enough to know either way concerns Islam, homosexuality, and never hearing the other person.

On the first, George Galloway has made clear that he doesn't like totalitarians, whether Muslim or not. However, perhaps for the same reason that I think he's too quick not to hear the other side (sometimes one can't because the other side isn't saying anything or is saying too much that's wrong; so I don't fault him for that), he seems to avoid raising the dark side unless it's put before him. I mean the dark side of "Islam." That's in quotes because what constitutes Islam is debatable and debated by Muslims and non-Muslims too.

This may be pushed on him more than anything. He seems to be attacked by a great many rather stupid people in "high" places, so he appears always ready to fire back rather than searching or probing to see if there's any capacity for grasping or changing, etc. Okay, the people who know me may be thinking this is the pot calling the kettle black, and they'd have a point to a degree. I'm thinking out loud about myself too, even though I do believe that over the years I've eased up on firing back George Galloway style.

So, that covers number 1 and 3: Islam and never hearing the other person. On homosexuality, well, he's openly supportive of it. At least that's how it appears. Whereas, I hold that it's an error, always. I'm not coercive about it, but that doesn't stop those who love to roll out the trite commentary, as if I haven't heard it all before and as if the "barbs" of people who can't discuss things honestly get to me. I mean, when I say that penises don't belong in anuses (fact) and hear back that, that means I hire male prostitutes (wow, do they really think they win a debate with that? It's not about that though, is it; it's about "acting out" and silencing the intelligent conversation), it's too the point where I wonder why people aren't willing to be honest anymore. Do they understand what cognitive dissonance is?

George Galloway is right to be anti-war. He's been right to help get aid into Gaza. He's been right to continue to speak out against Zionism, although he doesn't use the term much that I can tell. He's also been right to care about the working class and poor.

What I'd like to see is more probing from him rather than instantly "cutting off heads" or quickly setting others up for the "kill." I don't think that's asking too much. I think he'd probably be good at it and that doing it would expand his reach.

I like George Galloway more than I don't, but I'm sure he and I would argue (if he does that, if he sticks around and doesn't get offended and say who needs such friends...). There are limits. I have them too. Don't huff off to easily.

I think it's good for England and the UK that George is back in Parliament. They need someone to challenge them on their terrible policies and practices.

I wish him well. May God bless him in his attempt to know and to speak truth.


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.