Electric cars were touted in the 1990's by General Motors and others. However, General Motors stop pursuing them, because they say there was not adequate demand. The cruising range was around one hundred miles, and the charging time was around eight hours. They recalled all their leased-out cars and crushed and shredded them along with all the new (unused) cars they had on their show lots. The reason given was that they would not be continuing a replacement-parts program and it was a safety issue.
It is great to see that California enthusiasts didn't give up on the promise of electric cars. Hobbyists have produced cars that are extremely powerful, very fast, and have cruising ranges of three hundred miles.1 Charging times have been reduced as well.
Our main objection to electric cars at the time was that electricity came primarily from the grid and the grid was dependent upon nuclear and carbon-based generating plants. In a thoughtful and intelligent answer to that important consideration, California began developing free, solar recharging covered-parking lots. The carport roofs were covered by solar panels. That was a great idea on the part of green-minded souls and would have been the solution to the nuclear waste and air-pollution problems with recharging from the grid. Of course, many of us were calling for the grid itself to be solar driven.
However, as we have seen with Tesla's plan to give free electrical energy to the people, people such as J. P. Morgan and the other robber barons couldn't charge the people in that case and, therefore, couldn't selfishly enrich themselves at the expense of even the poorest of the poor. It is ever so, which means that behind the scenes at General Motors, there were forces at work that did to the General Motors research and development plans what J. P. Morgan did to Tesla's R&D and for exactly the same reason.
Well, solar electrical-panel costs are falling. When coupled with electric cars, the whole cycle is vastly cleaner and safer than hydrogen fuel-cell technology.
Older cars can be retrofitted relatively easily with electric motors and batteries too.
This is something the Real Liberal Christian Church will keep in mind when it comes time to handle transportation and farm equipment. It would seem that solar panels and electric motors could drive tractors for instants.
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)