The U.S. Senate has agreed to grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications industry for its criminal complicity in aiding the NSA in its illegal domestic-spying operation. This is a slap in the face of Qwest Corporation, the only corporation that stood up to the Bush Administration by saying it would not aid the NSA in spying on Qwest customers without a court warrant. It is also a slap in the face of every citizen of the U.S. It is also a terrible example to give the children who will take this as a sign that crime pays.

Crime pays?

The richer one is, the more the crime pays. The idea is, become the biggest criminal by becoming the President of the criminal enterprise known as the Empire that can go around the world stealing anything it pleases because it has the weapons to kill anyone who doesn't like it.

The thing the children need to be taught though is that crime pays loan proceeds from Satan. Satan will be repaid with interest via the debtor's soul enslaved in hell.

We aren't for punishment. We are for repentance and forgiveness. This shameful piece of legislation though says nothing of responsibility, accountability, or morality. It says, the President is above the law, not just the mundane law but the divine law. In effect, it says that if the President does it, it's legal. That was Richard Nixon's position—The imperial president.


The U.S. has an emperor-dictator for a term or two, until a pretext that postpones elections indefinitely due to national security. George W. Bush has ruled by decree. His signing statements have had more effect than Supreme Court rulings and non-vetoed but passed legislation combined.

Trillions of missing dollars

Under his watch, trillions of dollars have been disappeared from the Pentagon budget. Where's the money, George? Who has it? Who stole it? Get it back. It disappeared at the Pentagon under Rumsfeld and his neocon accountant. Who's on the case? Whom has George W. Bush put on the case of accounting for all that hard-earned money of the U.S. taxpayers, many of whom are poor?

House divided will not stand

Well, the house is certainly divided and cannot stand and will not stand. The United States of America is going to come crashing down. That is going to happen, because of the wickedness of its leaders. It is also going to happen, because those leaders reflect the moral cowardice of the people who refuse not to go along with it, not to facilitate it, not to be the wheels in the machinery of it.

People are pretending

Why are the people being that way? Well, they pretend not to understand that the powers that be are evil. They choose to look the other way so they may have their possessions. However, their possessions are going to go away.


Is there anyway to avoid hell coming? Yes. Repent! That means stop being evil. It means, start being good towards those who see the United States as evil, greedy, violent, thieving, depraved, shallow, stupid, and all the rest of the bad. It means start investing in the new wineskin (new system) that will hold the new spirit (good shepherd) to shine the light of example of how things ought to be and can be and will become because of that very example.

Checks and balances: A ruse

The system of checks and balances designed by the U.S. founding fathers is an unmitigated disaster. It absolutely hasn't worked and never will. It is based upon force, coercion, the threat of arms against the very people who are supposed to be the government. It is ridiculous. In the U.S., you have a gun you are pointing at yourself in that system.

Working conscience

The only system that will ever work is the one where the people don't agree to some hodgepodge of fallacious checks and balances but rather where the people agree to have love be their governing emotion. Think about it. The so-called checks and balances is an agreement that the criminals have designed were they will each check and balance each other. It's a ruse to fool the masses.

There is no honor among thieves in the end. What a low calling is this checks and balances. Can you imagine the Apostles suggesting to Jesus that they need a system of checks and balances to head off their inherent untrustworthiness? We are to have working consciences on the inside controlling us not the threat of checks and balances from the outside.

Christian Commons

In the Christian Commons, the souls are trustworthy. Those who prove otherwise, face the progressive discipline [Matthew 18:16-18] of the Church. Heathens are outside.

Better see the light before it's too late.

This has become what is known as a hot issue. See other blog reactions:

Give Feinstein 'The Word' on FISA, No Immunity!10 hours ago by A.Citizen
Unfortunately, it appears that the Senate has negotiated a bill that - while incorporating some improvements - would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies who broke the law by helping the Bush administration spy on their ...

Senate and Bush Agree On Terms of Spying Bill18 Oct 2007 by mrspickles
Some Telecom Companies Would Receive Immunity. By Jonathan Weisman and Ellen Nakashima. Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, October 18, 2007; Page A01. Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration ...

Chris Dodd defends the constitution18 Oct 2007 by dcblogger
Exclusive: Senator Chris Dodd Will Put A Hold On Telecom Immunity Bill. Senator Chris Dodd plans to put a hold on the Senate FISA renewal bill because it reportedly grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies for any role they ...

Some Blogs - and I try to catch up on the mail18 Oct 2007 by opit
Missing from the 2008 presidential race: governors. Senate Dems and Rockefeller cave on telecom immunity in FISA. ( getting to be a mantra : "Dems cave'" ). And now for Tucker Carlson's grown up version of 'The Women Haters Club' ...

Support Chris Dodd's Hold on Telecom Amnesty Bill18 Oct 2007 by willyloman
"Dodd's planned action comes amid reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee has reached a deal with the White House on the legislation that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for whatever role they played in the National ...

Senator Chris Dodd Will Put A Hold On Telecom Immunity Bill18 Oct 2007 by nwmuse
By doing this, Dodd can effectively hold up the telecom immunity bill, because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward. One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by ...

Telecom Immunity: Why?18 Oct 2007 by fleetadmiralj
However, I will agree with them on one point: I don't see the purpose of Telecom Immunity. If they didn't break the law, then they shouldn't have anything to fear form lawsuits. If they do have something to fear, that probably means the ...

Anti Family Planning Czar18 Oct 2007 by slivermoon22
INTELLIGENCE - SENATE GRANTS IMMUNITY TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ON WIRETAPPING: Yesterday, the Senate reached an agreement with the Bush administration on a government surveillance bill that includes immunity for ...

Support Dodd4 hours ago by LeisureGuy
... since his announcement that he will put a hold on-and may even filibuster-a foreign intelligence surveillance bill approved yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Dodd objects to a provision that would grant immunity to the ...

PHONE COMPANY'S REFUSE TO COMPLY16 Oct 2007 by michaelscorner
McConnell acknowledged the existence of the program in August and said telecommunications companies should be given immunity from lawsuits claiming privacy violations. AT&T, Verizon and other carriers are being sued for providing ...

Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers9 Oct 2007 by mlyon01
A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration plan, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications utilities that participated in the ...

Bush and the Phone Companies: Partners in Crime18 Oct 2007 by fred
Democrats will bring the bills to the full House for passage next week. The Senate Intelligence Committee will be introducing its own bill. The House move against immunity should serve as a guide for their colleagues in Senate chambers. ...

Democrats = Cowards18 Oct 2007 by Tim
... the thousandth time, it appears that the Senate majority has once again caved to White House demands - this time, the telecommunications companies will receive retroactive immunity for their actions related to domestic wiretapping. ...

Bush wins on FISA18 Oct 2007 by Macranger
"Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of ...

A bummin' flowah seeks medical help . . .18 Oct 2007 by lotus
Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies announces the New York Times. Senate and Bush Agree On Terms of Spying Bill brags the Washington Post. Oh look, our government's working! So what's wrong with me? Why don'tI feel proud? ...

Senator Dodd says no to FISA Act shenanigans-take action now13 hours ago by Nijma
The latest compromise worked out in a secret session of the intelligence committee would make warrantless wiretapping legal and retroactively make the telecommunications companies that participated in it immune from prosecution. ...

What FISA Capitulations Are Democrats Planning Next? by Glenn ...9 Oct 2007 by dandelionsalad
And it provides nothing at all in the way of amnesty or immunity for lawbreaking telecoms or administration officials. The bill introduced by House leadership is a bill the White House will never accept and would certainly veto, ...

Congress should not assist in a cover-up of NSA spying12 Oct 2007 by dewayne
At the top of the Bush administration's list: granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that have been participating with the National Security Agency in the widespread and incontrovertibly illegal warrantless ...

"Framing" a "News" Story 10118 Oct 2007 by usinkorea
Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of ...

Dems Capitulate Again18 Oct 2007 by genghishitler
WaPo reports a "compromise" among Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the administration on a new bill that "will include full immunity for those [telecommunications] companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted ...

Impeach Bush and Cheney: Current Clips News and Views11 Aug 2007 by Ed, Dickau
First, the law requires telecommunications companies to make their facilities available for government wiretaps, and it grants them immunity from lawsuits for complying. Under the old program, such companies participated only ...

President Bush Asking for More Power to Wiretap Americans, Gutting ...31 Jul 2007 by daredevil92103
"Hidden in this bill is a disturbing provision that would give complete immunity - from criminal prosecution as well as civil liability - for the telecom companies' participation in the National Security Agency's illegal warrantless ...

Dems Likely to Cave on Surveillance8 Oct 2007 by marc
A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration's demands, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that took part in the NSA's ...

Ready Dems To Excavate Again?9 Oct 2007 by hal23383
As if that was not quite bad, a Senate that the version that was bandied around seems ready to offer the white house still more, including the retroactive immunity for the telecommunications that participated in the PUT things to the ...


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.