So, the neocons hate Ron Paul, the libertarian, naturally. John C. Fortier, at the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was the executive director of the Continuity in Government Commission. They came up with the "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20/51." It is the Bush administration's National Continuity Policy. The directive states that in the event of a catastrophic emergency, all power will fall to the President. If the President were to declare a catastrophic emergency, the President would assume the power to disband Congress and control the Courts. Everything would come under the power of Presidential decree. The President could takeover all business to meet the emergency.
The American Enterprise Institute is neocon through-and-through, meaning it played a huge roll in all the lying leading up to the invasion of Baghdad. They cannot be trusted at all. They are avowed Machiavellians. The infamous Project for the New American Century is under their umbrella.
There already is a National Emergencies Act of 1976 though. It prevents a perpetual state of emergency. It is designed to prevent a President from taking control and refusing to let go.
Now, in the event of a real catastrophic emergency, most Americans would want to see an honest President doing everything possible to meet emergency needs as rapidly and intelligently as possible of as many people as possible under the given circumstances. A major problem is that George W. Bush has a track record. Hurricane Katrina is a large but nevertheless microcosmic example. If a catastrophic situation were to occur that were to make Katrina pale by comparison, Bush's reaction would be orders of magnitude worse than it was concerning Katrina.
Also, the problem is that this directive in the hands of a dishonest, power-hungry President is a temptation to permanent dictatorship. That's why, among other reasons, Ron Paul doesn't like it.
Libertarians don't trust anyone with very much power, if any at all. They believe that "he, who governs less, governs best." Limited government down to no government is their vision. They believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We don't agree. God has absolute power but isn't corrupt at all. They don't understand that. They focus solely on God's opposite. They want a system to keep God's opposite down rather than a system to raise God up in the hearts and minds of the people, thereby precluding the rise of God's opposite. You see here what separates the way of the Real Liberal Christian Church from the rest. We seek to raise up Jesus in the hearts and minds of the people. Then all the checks and balances and the rest won't be even contemplated.
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)