Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
Class Warfare / June 22, 2012


This article was first published at The Daily Banter

Progressive intellectuals have been acting very bipolar towards labor lately, characterized by wild mood swings ranging from the “We’re sorry we abandoned labor, how could we!” sentiment during last year’s Wisconsin uprising against Koch waterboy Scott Walker, to the recent “labor is dead/it’s all labor’s fault” snarling after the recall vote against Gov. Walker failed.

It must be confusing and a bit daunting for those deep inside the labor movement, all these progressive mood swings. At the beginning of this month, New York Times’ columnist Joe Nocera wrote a column about having a “V-8 Moment” over the abandonment of labor unions, an abandonment that was so thorough and so complete that establishment liberals like Nocera forgot they’d ever abandoned labor in the first place!

The intellectual-left’s wild mood swings between unrequited love towards labor unions, and unrequited contempt, got me wondering how this abandonment of labor has manifested itself. While progressives and labor are arguing, sometimes viciously, over labor’s current sorry state, one thing progressives haven’t done is serious self-examination on how and where this abandonment of labor manifests itself, how it affects the very genetic makeup of liberal assumptions and major premises.

So I did a simple check: I went to the websites of three of the biggest names in liberal activist politics: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ACLU. Checking their websites, I was surprised to find that not one of those three organizations lists labor as a major topic or issue that it covers.

Go to Amnesty International’s home page at On the right side, under “Human Rights Information” you’ll see a pull-down menu: “by topic.” Does labor count as a “Human Rights topic” in Amnesty’s world? I counted 27 “topics” listed by Amnesty International, including “Abolish the death penalty”, “Indigenous Peoples”, “ “Children and Human Rights” and so on. Nowhere do they have “labor unions” despite the brutal, violent experience of labor unions both here and around the world. It’s not that Amnesty’s range isn’t broad: For example, among the 27 topics there are “Women’s rights”, “Stop Violence Against Women” and “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”. There’s even a topic for “Business and Human Rights”—but nothing for labor.

Puzzled, I called Alex Edwards, Amnesty’s Media Relations guy in Washington DC, to ask him why labor unions didn’t rate important enough as a “topic” on Amnesty’s “list of topics.” Edwards was confused, claimed that he was totally unaware that there was a “list of topics” on Amnesty’s home page, and promised to get back to me. I haven’t heard back from him.

Amnesty’s “Topics”: Labor rights “disappeared”

Next, I checked Human Rights Watch. From my experience in Russia and Eastern Europe, I’ve learned to expect less from HRW than I would from Amnesty—my memory of HRW during the Kosovo conflict and in others is that, when called to, HRW acts as a propaganda arm for the liberal hawk war party. But HRW has also done a lot of important good work in areas not covered by the press, and they’re certainly better than most—so does Human Rights Watch consider labor unions an important human rights issue?

Checking Human Rights Watch’s homepage (, there’s a tab listing “topics”—14 topics in all. Once again, labor is not listed among Human Rights Watch’s covered “topics.” Instead, Human Rights Watch lists everything from “Children’s Rights” to “Disability Rights” to “LGBT Rights” and “Women’s Rights”—along with “Terrorism”, “Counterterrorism” and, I shit you not, “Business”—as vital human rights topics. But not labor. “Business”—but not “Labor.”

On the advice of an old friend, Jan Frel, I read an excellent book on the human rights industry, James Peck’s Ideal Illusions, which helps answer why labor rights have been airbrushed out of the language of human rights. It wasn’t always this way: Economic rights and workplace rights were for decades at the very heart of the human rights movement. This was officially enshrined in 1948, when the United Nations adopted a 30-point “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” putting labor rights and economic equality rights alongside those we’re more familiar with today, like freedom of expression, due process, religion and so on. But somehow, labor rights and economic justice have been effectively amputated from the human rights agenda and forgotten about, in tandem with the American left’s abandonment of labor.

In Peck’s history, Human Rights Watch stands out as a force for rank neoliberalism, a major player in the extermination-by-omission of labor rights and economic equality rights from the language of human rights. How this happened sheds at least a bit more light on how the left abandoned labor.

Aryeh Neier, founder of Human Rights Watch and its executive director for 12 years, doesn’t hide his contempt for the idea of economic equality as one of the key human rights. Neier is so opposed to the idea of economic equality that he even equates the very idea of economic equality and justice with oppression—economic rights to him are a violation of human rights, rather than essential human rights, thereby completely inverting traditional left thinking.

Here’s what Neier wrote in his memoir, Taking Liberties:

“The concept of economic and social rights is profoundly undemocratic… Authoritarian power is probably a prerequisite for giving meaning to economic and social rights.”

Neier here is aping free-market libertarian mandarins like Friedrich von Hayek, or Hayek’s libertarian forefathers like William Graham Sumner, the robber baron mandarin and notorious laissez-faire Social Darwinist.  As with Neier, William Graham Sumner argued that liberty has an inverse relationship to economic equality; according to Sumner, the more economic equality, the less liberty; whereas the greater the inequality in a society, the more liberty its individuals enjoy. It’s the fundamental equation underlying all libertarian ideology and politics—a robber baron’s ideology at heart.

Neier goes further, explicitly rejecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because nine of its 30 articles focus on economic rights as human rights. Neier objects to that, singling out for censure “such economic issues as a right to work; to social security; and to an adequate standard of living.” The human rights article on “a right to work” that Neier dismisses as “authoritarian” is Article 23, and it reads:

“Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”

It’s interesting that Neier rejects Article 23, the article on labor, which he mislabels as “a right to work”, because back in the 1970s, when Neier was executive director of the ACLU, he supported big business’s “Right To Work” anti-labor laws, against the rest of the left and the ACLU, which at the time still supported labor rights as civil rights. The so-called “Right To Work” laws are grossly misnamed—they’re really laws designed to bust unions by making it even more difficult for them to organize worker power against the overwhelming power of the corporation. It was corporate PR flaks hired to deceive and conceal the real purpose of those laws who came up with the false name “Right To Work” laws. Fred Koch, father of Charles and David Koch and one of the founders of the John Birch Society, got his start in rightwing politics as a leader of the “Right To Work” movement in Kansas in the mid-1950s.

Less than twenty years after Fred Koch fought to destroy labor rights through “Right To Work” laws, the executive director of the ACLU, Aryeh Neier—the same Aryeh Neier who later led Human Rights Watch— colluded with William Buckley to push the ACLU rightward against labor by getting the ACLU to represent big business and “Right To Work” laws, under the guise of “protecting free speech”—the same bullshit pretense always used by lawyers and advocates to help big business crush labor and democracy. This “free speech” pretense is the basis on which the ACLU currently supports the Citizens United decision, which effectively legalized the transformation of America into an oligarchy.

I found an article from 1971 written by William Buckley in which the National Review founder praises Neier for working with him to turn the ACLU against labor: “I invited the ACLU to practice consistency by associating itself with a lawsuit which would prove unpopular among its labor union supporters,” Buckley wrote. “The executive director, Aryeh Neier, has replied, rather straightforwardly, I think. He says, ‘for many years, it has been the ACLU’s policy that the union shop does not, by itself, violate civil liberties. I have felt for some time that we should review this policy and I will use your request to initiate reconsideration,’ going on to say that it will take a while to canvass the directors.”

New Right “libertarian” William Buckley teams up with ACLU’s Neier to destroy labor

A few years later, Buckley boasted of his first early success in turning the ACLU against labor, citing not just his ally Aryeh Neier, but also another well-known name in the so-called “left,” Nat Hentoff. Buckley wrote in 1973:

“Meanwhile, Mr. Nat Hentoff, a left-winger of undiluted loyalty to the first amendment, has urged his very important constituency to side with me and with Evans [M. Stanton Evans, an early libertarian and longtime defender of Joseph McCarthy] and has attempted to persuade the American Civil Liberties Union to file a brief amicus curiae. He has almost singlehandedly persuaded the ACLU to change its historic opinion about union membership. The union shop, the ACLU now says belatedly, ought not to be required for people who are journalists.”

The lawsuit Buckley refers to, Buckley and Evans vs. AFTRA, was backed by the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, the legal arm of the notorious union-busting outfit of the same name. And “leftist” Nat Hentoff. People used to think Hentoff was a leftist—and he seemed like one to de-politicized Baby Boomer imbeciles, who figured the Village Voicelabel on Hentoff’s columns meant whatever he said was leftist. Today, Hentoff is finally in his ideological home at the Cato Institute, the Koch brothers’ anti-labor, pro-oligarchy libertarian think-tank. Despite the Cato Institute’s tireless efforts to undermine democracy and labor, many progressives today consider Cato as “left” or “progressive”—a perversion only possible in today’s mutant left, stripped of its historical relationship to labor and economic justice.

The ACLU under Aryeh Neier also allied with another Buckley in another key decision that hurt labor and democracy and helped the oligarchy: Buckley v Valeo in 1976. Neier was the ACLU head at the time that the ACLU sided with William Buckley’s brother, James Buckley, in a lawsuit to open up the money floodgates into American politics. Most people don’t know Neier’s role in moving the ACLU against labor and against egalitarianism—instead, he did a lot of cheap grandstanding on behalf of Nazi marchers in Skokie. That’s the sort of pseudo-politics and pseudo-bravery that, stripped of economic politics and labor politics, results in the pseudo-left of today, a left absorbed by “identity politics” at the expense of labor, egalitarianism and socio-economic justice.

And that brings me to the ACLU today—the most depressing part of this story. I had an inkling that the ACLU had abandoned labor before my simple exercise check of their website. Mike Elk has shared with me some of his research into this subject. And it’s well known that the ACLU vigorously supported the disastrous Citizens United decision; the ACLU also took $20 million dollars from the Koch brothers, whose libertarian outfits have played a major role in making Citizens United a reality. Supposedly that money was meant to “fight the Patriot Act”—which is odd, considering that the director of the Koch brothers’ Center for Constitutional Studies at Cato and Vice President for Legal Affairs at Cato, Roger Pilon, explicitly supported the Patriot Act from 2002 through 2008, and that the Kochs’ Cato Institute hired John Yoo to serve on their editorial advisory board for the Cato Supreme Court Review. One should be skeptical when it comes to Koch “donations” sold to the public as charity work in the service of human rights.

Maybe there’s no connection there whatsoever between the Kochs’ $20 million gift to the ACLU, and the ACLU’s advocacy for the Kochs’ pet political issue, Citizens United, which transferred greater power from democracy and into the hands of billionaire oligarchs like the Kochs. Maybe it’s all a coincidence, I don’t know. But we do know that there is precedent for the ACLU taking money from corporations, advocating their cause under the guise of “protecting free speech” and hiding the conflict of interest from the public in order to make their defense seem more convincing.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the ACLU vigorously defended the interests of the tobacco lobby under the guise of protecting their “first amendment rights”—and they did it for payments in-kindLeaked tobacco documents in the 1990s exposed the ACLU working out explicit deals with the tobacco industry to take their money in exchange for advocating their interests in public, without disclosing that gross conflict of interest and violation of the public trust. The documents and memos revealed that the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to the ACLU by the tobacco companies were payments in kind to for the ACLU’s defense of Big Tobacco, a relationship that both parties tried to hide in order to confuse the public into believing that the ACLU’s arguments for tobacco were motivated by purely altruistic constitutional arguments, rather than sleazy under-the-table cash payments. The ACLU is, after all, a trusted institution among progressives—that made them the ideal “Third Party Advocate” in PR terms for the tobacco industry’s interests.

Yessiree, it’s all about protecting our Constitutional liberties!

One of the best accounts of the ACLU’s sleazy relationship with big tobacco comes from former Washington Post investigative reporter Morton Mintz, in his piece, “The ACLU and the Tobacco Companies,” published in Harvard University’s Nieman Reports. Mintz reported how the ACLU laundered the tobacco lobby’s money as supposedly charity money to fight for workplace rights. This abuse of public trust so outraged former ACLU legal director, Melvin Wulf, that he publicly denounced the ACLU’s rationalization as a “sham” — the ACLU worked with tobacco to fight against second-hand smoke laws, the very opposite of “workplace rights”:

“The justification that the money is used to support workplace rights is a sham. There is no constitutional right to pollute the atmosphere and threaten the health of others. The revelations…support the conclusion that the ACLU’s mission is being corrupted by the attraction of easy money from an industry whose ethical values are themselves notoriously corrupt and which is responsible for the death annually of 350,000 to 400,000 persons in the U.S. alone.”

So it should come as no surprise that on the ACLU’s website, on the page marked “Key Issues”— labor does not appear. Not among the 14 categories of ACLU “Key Issues” — which include “HIV/AIDS”, “LGBT Rights”, “Technology and Liberty” and “Women’s Rights”. Not even among the 90 sub-categories of “Key Issues” is there a single mention of “labor rights.”

Everything under the civil liberties sun but labor rights and economic/social equality are named as ACLU “key issues.” Among the 90 sub-categories: “Marijuana Law Reform”, “Flag Desecration”, “LGBT Parenting”, “Medical Care in Prison” and “Mental Care In Prison” [separate sub-categories], “Biological Technologies”, “Internet Privacy”, and “Sex Education.” All of these certainly qualify as key issues to progressives; but the list of categories, 114 in all, without a single mention of labor unions, let alone economic equality or even the very word “equality”—provides a grim and shameful picture of a left stripped of labor, stripped of economic egalitarianism. It is not a left at all: It is, alas, libertarianism. The left was born of labor struggles and the fight against oligarchy and for egalitarianism, economic justice and equality. Now there isn’t even a memory of that.

Stunned by the fact that the ACLU didn’t even include “labor” or “equality” among the 114 “key topics” listed, I called and then wrote to the ACLU asking for comment.

Here is the response I received from Molly Kaplan, the media relations liaison at the American Civil Liberties Union:

Hi Mark,

Labor rights are certainly a key issue for the ACLU; it is folded into our work for free speech, immigrants’ rights and women’s rights. If you look into the pages for those issues, you will find that labor rights have a presence. Let us know if we can be of any further assistance.



Well, at least someone has labor rights.

Would you like to know more? Read Mark Ames exposé “Debunking Cato Institute Myths: GOP Bad Ideas Mill, Home to John Yoo and Rupert Murdoch“. Also read “The Oligarchy’s Rule Of Law”.

Mark Ames is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion from Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine.

Click the cover & buy the book!


Read more: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Mark Ames, Class Warfare

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at


Add your own

  • 1. darthfader  |  June 27th, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    People gay bashing in the comments here don’t get it

  • 2. John  |  June 28th, 2012 at 10:45 am

    I really enjoyed this article.

    That being said, I don’t think that the ACLU has ever claimed to have mission beyond protecting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, which doesn’t say much about labor rights.

  • 3. John  |  June 28th, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Oh, and I should also say that I was on a state board of the ACLU. I”m not sure you should say that the ACLU is a liberal group. There are lots of surprising consequences of supporting the Constitution and Bill of Rights that might shock your given liberal/progressive sort.

    All in all, the ACLU’s mission coincides with that of the left in this country, but far from completely.

    Individual rights often clash with the collectivist aspirations of the left.

    For someone who supposedly served on a state ACLU board, you are surprisingly ignorant of the founding years of the ACLU, which were primarily dedicated to defending labor rights.

  • 4. John  |  June 28th, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Oh, and the ACLU would take money from Satan himself. The organization is all about fund-raising.

  • 5. Nestore  |  June 28th, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    “under the guise of “protecting free speech”—the same bullshit pretense always used by lawyers and advocates to help big business crush labor and democracy. This “free speech” pretense is the basis on which the ACLU currently supports the Citizens United decision, which effectively legalized the transformation of America into an oligarchy.”

    AND NOW, that star chamber of corporate cock suckers and wal st jock strap carriers, The United States Supreme Court, with citizens untied has ruled that the people of an allegedlly “democratic” and “free” society cannot even pass laws via the so-called “democratic process” limiting the amount of money corporations can spend to purchase political power and disseminate costly, targeted, highly researched propaganda – in the name of “free speech”..i want Stalin Back.. he would know how to deal with this pack of rats.

  • 6. Nestore  |  June 28th, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Thank you YET AGAIN, Mark Ames. This story and the Yasha Levine SHAME series are getting RIGHT THE THE HEART of the scam. That The coup was made possible by the generosity of the L. Knight Foundation John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation National ………………………….

  • 7. Patriot  |  June 28th, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    This was pretty depressing, but I guess it makes sense. If I were an angry oligarchy I would try to neutralize as many threats as possible, and an ACLU pushing for labor rights is definitely a threat.

    Regarding identity politics: all politics is about identity. All politics is about getting together with people who share your identity and squabbling with the other people who don’t. And all politics is about drawing lines of who is in and and who is out.

    “Identity politics” is a right wing dog whistle for “any politics that isn’t all white all the time.” The one good legacy of the multi-cultural push in the 80s and 90s, has been to build a more ethnically inclusive idea of what it is to be an American. Considering that larges chunks of the US are trending majority non-white, I’d say that was essential. A lot of leftist programs are all about collective action, and you can’t have that without first defining who is in the collective. In fact, I’d argue that Rick Perlstein is right, that the leftist coalition fractured in the 60s when some whites decided that they were so unwilling to see blacks as human and equal, that they were willing to destroy collective society. This is why, for example, in places like Mississippi, people went for private, discriminatory schools and pools, so they didn’t have to share with blacks. Period.

    Now we have a tentative , multi-racial American identity, at least in some places. Now for the hard part.

  • 8. F  |  June 29th, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Jack is smart.

  • 9. Yam Digger  |  June 30th, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    I found this precious little gem on ACLUs Web site:

    “The ACLU and Citizens United (2012 statement): A legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”

    Yes folks, that says it all. I used to wonder why the ACLU would be so tunnel visioned in fighting for the constitution even if the decision gained would ruin American democracy. But having read this article about them deep throating some big Koch for 20 mil, it all makes perfect sense now! The ACLU is now just a faux-liberal organization that’s looking bugger the little guy’s back side with no lube. This is soooo depressing.

    As one poster above mused: I wonder what the modern ACLU would have told 60s civil rights protesters? I hate to say this, but I think we’ll soon be entering a new era feudal system.

  • 10. Nestore  |  July 1st, 2012 at 1:42 am

    “I hate to say this, but I think we’ll soon be entering a new era feudal system.”

    We are there my freind. Its now only a matter of degree

  • 11. squidd  |  July 2nd, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    not one word on “free” trade… i.e, nafta, et al…

    NO issues organization can REPLACE 10’s of 1000’s of physical plants moved offshore…

    there’s no labor movement… because there’s no ‘labor’ force anymore… those “retrained” workers now take home a quarter or less what they used to… have 2-3 jobs and too tired when they come home…

    NOW… bill clinton (and obama) say nafta can be ‘tweaked’… there’s nothing left to tweak…

    i worked on the perot effort to defeat nafta… and then the 96 telecom act… that put all the media in hands of 5-6 mega companies that can spew out “right to work” BS 24/7/365…

    it took the right 50 years to regroup w/ saint ronnie who fired PATCO workers…

    since then pensions… gone to leveraged buyouts and non-enforcement of anti trust, ala “too big too fail”…

    401k’s in a bubble and bust post overturned-glass-steagal world (bill clinton – again?)…

    and now they decimated the sancrosanct housing equity…

    you guessed it… it’s on to “entitlements”… ooops… i mean old age and disability Insurance…

    well written and researched… but i wouldn’t lay all of labor’s woes at their feet…

  • 12. agar  |  July 6th, 2012 at 5:03 am

    Christ almighty. With friends like these.
    I’m tempted to say we’re pretty much fucked, but there are still many millions of politically inactive people who could yet be led to the straight and narrow.

    As always, join or die, you poor forsaken sots. Are we citizens or aren’t we?

  • 13. brandon  |  July 8th, 2012 at 12:33 am

    I’m not sure I would want these organizations to support labor unions such as they are today. Labor rights, yes, definitely. But labor unions, to an outsider like myself, seem to be just another privileged, exclusive class themselves. If the protections of unionization are not applied to those who are most exploited, and only serve to make life more comfortable for some lucky ones, what is their value? In terms of economic equality what is their value?

    I realize that the reason HRW, Amnesty and the ACLU do not support unions is entirely different than what I wrote above. Also, this viewpoint, in effect, probably just plays into the hands of the corporates. But it seems to me that if there is a labor union, there should only be one labor union. And anyone who earns a wage should be part of it and protected by it. No?

  • 14. SkepticTank  |  July 14th, 2012 at 6:52 am

    Paranoia, is just knowing the truth.

    William Burroghs

  • 15. hogorina  |  September 20th, 2012 at 7:55 pm


    It seems that a national orgy is taking roots, as to what manner specific people should practice self-indulgence, in attempting by-pass mother nature. Dr. Sigmund Freud coined the ” Oedipus Complex,” into play regarding individual repression and regressing as individuals differ as to the unknown conscious release of erotic inhibitions and anxiety, long stored away since childhood. During mass hysteria, as we witness, sublimating intellectual are coming forth, in order to subconsciously connect with this nationwide release of stored up energy, being diverted from memories of infantile fixations, long repressed desires coming forth from toddler insecurity to be loved. This abnormal courting of a contraceptive guardian as a post behavioral confrontation, in trying to trick the alter Ego, in abiding with the Id to defuse overdue anxiety of which mentally unstable instincts must take group satisfaction, in clasping hands that some way must be found to thwart massive psychoneurosis in avoiding all temptations that has hounded mankind from the days of Adam and Eve. The National Psychiatric Association has long ago questioned just how Sigmund Freud designated regression and repression as tied to individual libido, in somewhat somewhat altering this opinion and its psychological play on individual neurosis. The late Dr.Judd Marmor, in his ” Psychiatry In In transition ” disapproves of Freud’s contention that a double classification toward personality disorder ( schizophrenia ) is incorrect; and that both word structure means one and the same…repression. Too, that schizophrenia is being dropped from psychiatry, because it has no clarity towards a supposed personality disorder. We must conclude that Freud’s Oedipus syndrome is in question. Yet, the squabble between pro-contraception preservers and those against this proposal, are in the same in that two classes of individuals are using public sublimation, as erotic desires still lay deep within the unknown subconscious– repression and regression.

  • 16. hogorina  |  September 1st, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Idle times is acquired by the few, by converting the wholes life time of labor to work. All elce is built into the system as a diversion from converting misled people from comprehending the elite ruling classes from public exposure.

  • 17. Hogorina-  |  October 25th, 2014 at 9:12 am

    things go wrong

  • 18. Hogorina-  |  November 1st, 2014 at 7:46 pm


    God has always been intolerant towards pseudo-
    religious philosophies, based upon man’s self-opinionated needs. Most people do not explain
    as to what deity being referred to in the singular.
    In most cases to believe is only allying with Satan and his gang; for even the devils believe. fear and tremble! From Gautama through Protestantism, one major religious empire thrown
    together with fear. Pull the money rug from be-
    neath and all crumble, into the ancient man-made
    temples of lust and gain.
    Naturally, the temple was destroyed in
    70 AD. Apparently, Something had gone wrong. God said that his personal temple would be destroyed and resurrected in 3 days. Ignorant and super ignorant, collectively, had been clinging to
    spiritual stagnation after returning from Babylon.
    America has become a modern day Babylon. Most
    likely God is rejecting America,as in the past, for his nation,and children, are now whoring

    In the final days ( 100-170 ) that total
    collapse of God’s church, which began at Antioch,
    lost all contact with his people; God withdrew his divine messages through prophets and Apostles.
    To even imply that God has no body, parts or passion, in implying that intolerance is
    not love, is to subtly spread open rebellion
    rebellion against anyone searching for truth.
    The glory of God is intelligence. God actually hates ignorance! One cannot be schooled
    while under the influence of spiritual pablum in the hands of hundreds of gods now flooding America. Look how Israel is treated today. The God
    of Israel is now at the mercies of pseudo oriental
    religious functionaries. Israel tries to practice
    tolerance, while intolerance is preached from every house top.
    Let me add: God is intolerant of every
    device of pseudo religious whoredom and its political power that feeds from the national
    treasury, Thank God for being intolerant.

  • 19. Katherine Hine  |  December 14th, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Left, right, center . . . who cares? All I care about is FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA and that proves that I “get it”

Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)


Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed