The Bush administration has rejected lawmakers demands to hand over documents related to the firing of nine US attorneys. On Thursday, White House counsel Fred Fielding told Congress, the President would invoke executive privilege to deny access to documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Fielding also said neither Miers nor Taylor would testify at hearings next month, as called for under their subpoenas. The rebuke could set off a new Congressional showdown, including efforts to cite the White House for contempt. Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy said the White House is practicing "Nixonian stonewalling."

Comment June 29: There is something called executive privilege. It is real, in the mundane sense. However, the Congress has the mundane duty to oversee the executive to make sure it, the executive, is faithfully executing the laws {passed by the legislature and not vetoed or pocket vetoed by the executive and as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, if one subscribes to the concept of judicial review under Marbury v. Madison (1803)}.

(The recent presidential signing statements actually test judicial review as a legitimate aspect of the checks and balances theory of governing.)

Some of the questions are, may the executive rightfully invoke executive privilege to hide illegality on the part of the executive and if not, who will hold the executive to account and how, since the executive is the law-enforcement branch.

You see here how the US Constitution is a document of faith in the impossible. It is sustained solely by coercion while also being based solely on agreement or taken on faith. These concepts are in opposition to each other; hence, the US Constitution is inherently hypocritical and abysmally inferior to the real law that is the New Commandment.

This is why the real Church is the real state. There is no such inherent hypocrisy built into it. This is why real-Church members cannot operate within the worldly, false-hearted system but rather ought to only work to divert the flow of mundane wealth to remaking the world into the real Christian commons.

Please donate to this most worthy of causes (Jesus's cause). You will find the donate button in the right column of this website approximately one screen down from the top. Please tithe or better if you are able, if the Holy Spirit gives you to do it, moves your heart to have the real faith to do it.


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.