Monday, July 03, 2006:
There was the Great Crash of 1929, and that heralded in the Great Depression. Out of that and WWII came the New Deal and the condemnation of the right-wing that was Nazism and Fascism (the merging of the state and the corporation). In reaction to the cruelty of the industrial revolution and all the oppression that preceded it throughout history, including done in the name of religion, sprang socialism and then Communism (Marxist-Leninist) and finally Stalinism.
Rather than take the steam out of Stalinism by continuing and enhancing New-Deal leveling, Nazis and Fascists within the US turn against the New Deal of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and later the Great Society of President Lyndon Baines Johnson. They, the Fascists, worked long and hard to keep the Red Scare alive. They worked long and hard to tie the New Deal to Stalinism in the minds of the general public. Don't take it wrong. We're not saying Roosevelt was a Populist. He wasn't a Populist (power to the people—grassroots), and neither was Lyndon Johnson.
The Nazi/Fascist tactics worked so well that at the time of his election, John Kennedy was more militantly anti-Communist than was Richard Nixon. It was Kennedy who picked up the failed fight in Vietnam where the French left off after their miserable defeat. Of course, the US had been footing some eighty percent of France's war cost at the end of France's colonial period in Vietnam.
The Fascist propaganda worked so well that the Clinton administration actually over saw much more of the dismantling of the New Deal and Great Society.
You see how the front seesaws back and forth all the while the powers that be in the shadows control the strings: The money.
Now, Bush-43 had himself in a terrible fix in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's been caught red-handed lying left and right. The ultraconservative wealthy know this and are hedging their bets with the Democrats. They don't want to be left outside when the Republicans lose. Therefore, they are making funding deals with the Democrats. They'll fund the Democrats in their so-called think tanks and campaigns so long as the Democrats agree not to rock the neoliberal, globalization, privatization, boat, which includes not losing the oil of Iraq.
Now this is about empire and not energy companies, per se. This is about denying others in the long term. The oil companies want quarterly profits remember. The neocons are thinking in terms of the century and millennium, in terms of bringing Israel finally to dominate Egypt and Babylon and Persia and necessarily all of the Arab nation (peoples).
So now we have the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation and the like, foundations behind the most virulent neocon think tanks, funding the Democrats.
People are wondering why Hillary Clinton says stay the course in Iraq. She chose New York to fill the seat of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, because there are many electoral college votes in New York and because there are many rich Zionists in New York who don't have an aversion to funding Democrats so long as they are willing to toe the Zionist line, which means the Arabs and Persians and others come second to Israel, always.
This all means that the Democratic Party is beholden somewhat to militant Zionism and even more so now to a fairly high degree of laissez faire capitalism and not antiwar or human rights or civil rights, etc. It must be understood that the Democrats in the highest places have not been adverse to employing the so-called noble lie. They aren't real Christians after all.
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)