TECHNOCRATS OR POLITICOS

In George W. Bush's push for the unitary executive, he has signed an executive order instructing every agency of the federal government to create an office for a Bush appointee to oversee every rule, regulation, and guidance document. All so-called significant guidance-documents will be forwarded to the White House for overview before those guidance documents are issued. 1

Traditionally, civil servants, career technical experts and bureaucrats, have been given control of promulgating, disseminating, and interpreting what is call regulatory law. The idea was that those people who specialize in a given field would have greater in-depth knowledge and ability to do these things in carrying out on a nonpartisan basis the legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the president.

These civil servants are not part of what would otherwise be the spoils system that would allow an administration to come into power and replace the entire body of agency employees with highly partisan political appointees. The reason to avoid the spoils system is to avoid cronies without the character, ability, knowledge, or skills from coming into agencies and fouling up the works, undoing or setting back supposed progress for perhaps years and decades to come.

With this move by Bush, the spoils system's camel has its nose under the tent.

Considering 1) the Bush-43 administration's track record of having such appointees attempt to gag NASA scientists (for the sake of ExxonMobil and other oil companies) who were voicing concerns over global warming and 2) Bush's abuse of Signing Statements at the suggestion of now associate Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito that are effectively backdoor line-item vetoes, this turn of events does not bode well for the environment or any of the other areas Bush always seeks to thwart for the sake of corporatism (fascism run amok; cartelism; government by unelected corporate leaders supporting the move to dictatorship).

More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress.2

This is designed to further centralize authority under the presidency so that the presidency will become more the tool of the huge corporations and those who control those corporations. The result will be more stringent controls on dissent through various coercive means: Censorship, propaganda, invasion of privacy, militarism, terror, war, imprisonment, torture, execution, extermination, and mind-control, etcetera. Measures will become increasingly harsh and repressive, imperious, undemocratic, and anti-egalitarian leading to scientific and technological control of everything.

We see for instance the energy sector being regulated by the largest oil companies. This sector has been given so much sway in the Bush administration that environmental protection has been severely weakened and wars have been waged in an attempt at oil hegemony. This is crony capitalism and undemocratic-certainly the opposite of non-coercive, small-c communism.

The issue comes down to whether or not the government serves by the democratically derived consent of an openly, honestly, and directly informed people, not a people forced into servitude to the state but rather a people choosing unity by their freely exercised God-given will and conscience.


FOOTNOTES:

1 Robert Pear. "Bush directive increases sway on regulation." International Herald Tribune. January 30, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070326044257/http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/30/news/web.0130prexy.php. (last accessed: Tuesday, January 30, 2007). Return to text body.

2 Peter N. Spotts. "Has the White House interfered on global warming reports?" Christian Science Monitor. January 30, 2007. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html. (last accessed: Tuesday, January 30, 2007). Return to text body.

Donate


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.