Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Nancy Pelosi is the in-coming Speaker of the US House of Representatives.

She is hyper pro-Israel to the point of completely ignoring the plight of the Palestinians.

She backed John Murtha for majority leader. Murtha's ethical lapse of judgment concerning the conduct of his official public office was revealed in tapes that were part of the FBI's Abscam sting operation of 1978.

Pelosi also refused Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee. Hastings was removed from the bench. He was acquitted, however, of criminal bribery charges.

Now something very important about Hastings is that acquittal should be enough to clear a person provided there were no deceitful tricks or underhanded acts involved in the criminal proceedings. Pelosi made her decision based upon shallow appearances and for purely political reasons in the most mundane sense.


Michigan Democratic representative John Conyers was the chairmen of the subcommittee which investigated Hastings. Conyers moved the impeachment process forward in 1988.

When Bush-43 was in his ascendancy, Conyers, when addressing leftists, was adamant about calling for thorough investigations of Bush. Now that the Democrats are about to lead in both houses of Congress, Conyers and Pelosi have made clear statements against such investigations. That is playing fast and loose with the grassroots, something that hasn't gone unnoticed—the points being responsibility, accountability, and the integrity of the system.

Of course, as real Christians, we know that the truth (real, whole truth) will not, and can not, come out of that system under any circumstances.

Conyers echoed Lee Hamilton concerning Reagan and Bush-41 when Bush-41 was vice president during the Iran-Contra high crimes. Hamilton said impeachment would not be good for the American people. Conyers has now said the same about Bush-43.

However, Conyers has apparently felt the heat of the left, because he said January 27, 2007, in Washington at an antiwar rally of some five hundred thousand that "we can fire him" [Bush]. Most people took that as a weak statement that Congress can impeach and remove Bush from office.

What's the Real Liberal Christian Church position on this?

Well, the US likes to think of itself as a united house, hence its name. The Church is united, and within it, we have rules for dealing with those who start to wander from the law, which law is the new commandment. We have the ultimate end of the progressive process the ostracism of the offender. Naturally, if the offender is a minister who was chosen by the Church body to lead, such ostracism counts as a termination from office.

Applying that same principle to the United States, the people certainly have the right to apply their mundane law by impeaching the president and vice president.

What are the consequences of not moving in that direction? In the Church, failure to rebuke and finally ostracize, if it comes to that, facilitates apostasy and hypocrisy. The Church has inherent within its law loving the enemy, praying for the enemy to turn, etc., and forgiving and accepting back the truly repentant. The people of the United States are free to model their efforts as closely to that as they want. However, at the very least, the same problems of future facilitation result from taking no action.

Rebuke is necessary , and considering the grave nature of the offenses that include hundreds of thousands of needless deaths and injuries and all the destruction and wasted resources, etc., and considering that president Bush and vice president Cheney had been rebuked in private meetings by those who disagreed with their direction, and then in public by a sizable group of voices also explaining the error of the Bush-Cheney direction, it is clear that the progress aspect of the process has reached the point where impeachment proceedings are in order.

Of course, it would be vastly superior were Bush/Cheney, et al., to resign in repentance.

We don't advocate judging and condemning their souls to hell, since either or both may still repentant in earnest, but the day has long since gone by when either of the two should be sitting in the seats of power serving at the will of the body, the people.

However, what must be recognized here is that the very fact that they are still sitting in those seats is a clear indication that the body is not of the one house of God, the highest heaven. The very fact that there are those in the supposed opposition who are saying that even though Bush and Cheney refused to accept righteous rebuking and refuse to repent, those of that false opposition are willing to stop the process before the place where Jesus said it stops, namely at the point where one and all treat the unrepentant as heathens not to be followed at all.

What this all means is that the nation-state called the United States of America is not of God but of false-hearted men and women who will never bring forth heaven on earth. Their constitution only pretends to heaven's path. It is misdirecting, inherently and fatally flawed, woefully inadequate, a document of coercion, the supporter of the pentagram-Pentagon, Sodom, poverty, and hypocrisy.

Favors for the rich, neglect of the poor, massive violence in the interest of continental and world expansion—that is the persistent record of our government.

Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.[235]

Impeachment and removal is to rebuke and set up a new shepherd.

The house will still be divided however. Nevertheless, it is important for people to understand that the current shepherds are motivated by selfishness.


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 Sup5 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.