The Bush administration has systematically discriminated against Blacks. The Bush administration was, and remains, despicable concerning Hurricane Katrina. There is no doubt that it is racially motivated. They have also completely subverted the civil rights division of the U.S. Justice Department.
This is exactly in line with the Southern strategy begun in the Nixon era whereby those who were then termed Dixiecrats were wooed by the conservative, racist Republicans into switching party allegiance.
Ronald Reagan rode this trend to a landslide victory in 1980. Reagan began his general election campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, by stating he was for states' rights. Philadelphia, Mississippi, was where the KKK had murdered three civil-rights workers in the 1960's. States rights was the term used by the spiritual and blood descendants of slavers and slave holders in the South. The states wanted the right to discriminate against Blacks with racial segregated facilities where Blacks would be afforded much inferior facilities. The Whites wanted to remain legally superior to the Blacks across-the-board, meaning regardless of the individual qualities of Blacks. A Black person could be of the highest moral character, but it wasn't to matter even when accused by the lowest lowlife White.
This legacy still remains as a strong influence in the South and elsewhere in the U.S. It is strong within the anti-Hispanic movement and the anti-immigration movement, whether mundanely illegal or legal under the worldly law. It is strong within the so-called libertarian movement, because so many supremacists see the opportunity to reassert there dominance through that movement for more local autonomy.
They are against coercive union on the U.S. federal level, because they see their ability to dominate as being much better when they can control local areas such as the small counties in the Deep South.
At the same time, the federal use of coercion to keep the Union together is also an evil.
It turns out that people of character and morals are denied at both ends. They are handed the choice of having tyrants over them at the federal level or local level and sometimes both.
The supremacists want supremacy within their own homes to do with their family members as they want as the kings of their own houses. This is a desire on the micro and macro levels. It applies to the father of a small family right on up to the king of a large nation or empire asserting his divine right of absolute sovereignty with the power of decreeing any law just by uttering his whim.
He [Reagan] was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.
Congress overrode the veto.
Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.
Source: "Righting Reagan's Wrongs?" by Bob Herbert. The New York Times. November 13, 2007.
That's only the tip of Reagan's evil. What is Ronald Reagan's name doing on the Washington, D.C. international airport?
This same Southern Strategy has helped the false-Zionists gain more power for their own ethnic bigotry in Israel and their coming out here in the U.S. We see more and more neocons popping up from the ranks of the used-to-be anti-racist Jews in New York and elsewhere in the country. What a mess. They are playing with fire, and their going to be burned by backlash.
The White racists don't like the Jews any more than they like Blacks or Arabs or Mexicans. They like White Power, and they don't consider Jews as White. White people, according to these White supremacists, call themselves Christians and are of Germanic stock only. This means people whose tongues are Germanic by bloodline. They're every bit as bloodline oriented as are the false-Zionists in Israel. Those false-Zionists and the neocon Jews in the U.S. are playing right into the White supremacists' hands.
Those neocons are to blame for the Iraq War and the coming Iran War. The policies of the false-Zionists are responsible for the treatment of the Palestinians that has so long upset the Arabs and Muslims in general. The U.S. has backed those false Zionists, so the U.S. is attacked.
The global imperialist plutocrats are managing all to this for profit, but the people two steps removed from that circle don't see 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)