Thursday, January 11, 2007
Is there anyone left who doesn't realize that the false-conservatives, the neocon false-Zionists, the expansionist nationalists, are ethically blind?
How long did they say that environmentalism was nutty? Now what are they saying? They're saying it's time to stop talking about who's responsible for global warming. They were denying global warming just last year (2006) and already they want to move on past the culprits (ExxonMobil Corporation and others) who are still trying to keep alive the falsehood that there is no proof of global warming from the oil industry liable for the decades that they deliberately lied just as did the tobacco industry, which continue devouring souls, spiking their products with nicotine.
Even while Exxon Mobil funds scientists to testify to Congress that the proof isn't in and even while they have a revolving door to government and the White House and agencies where their people censor the news of the oil industry having knowingly caused the global warming crisis we now face, Exxon Mobil places false propaganda on its website in an attempt to deflect criticism about it's despicable activities over the decades since the 1960's when every thinking person knew full well that air pollution was a huge problem and an inevitable nightmare if the policy makers and law makers didn't do the right thing. They didn't. They only took tiny steps where radical changes were called for.
ExxonMobil's position on climate change continues to be misunderstood by some individuals and groups.
There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
Climate remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. But the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.
Now Bush gives his 2007 State of the Union Address saying that we need to cut gasoline use by twenty percent in ten years. What he covered up was that he was talking about cuts from projected growth in use. Actually use would not be cut twenty percent from current levels. That's bad environmental stewardship and a typical slippery maneuver by one with a liar's spirit.
These slippery people are in charge of everything. They are in charge of US foreign and domestic policy and still have the greatest sway over the UN, even though US clout is dropping precipitously.
The Worldwide Attack Matrix is very much still the plan, and it was widened to include the Pentagon special forces. We saw them heating things up in Somalia many months ago, turning it into a war zone, killing innocent civilians while supposedly targeting terrorists. Now we see them heating up Sudan.
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)