Why is that people who seem bright enough just don't seem to recognize that the people who are truly running the world are not nationalists?
Why do so many seem to think that Putin is the model of the leader we need in the U.S.? Putin is a ruthless authoritarian. He is also nationalistic. He is also an anachronism. Yes, he's popular in Russia, because Russia was on its knees before Putin. He's only popular, because the Russians have never known anything but authoritarianism or ineptitude. They've never even pretended to the lies of the American political-socialization process where the children have been taught that Americans are somehow morally exceptional. Well, that lie of American exceptionalism (morality) has certainly been exposed for the whole world to see.
Why, though, don't the people see the ultra-rich as being the power behind the frontline power figures? Why don't the people realize that the public leaders are ultimately beholden to the people who hold and control the purse strings? The wealthiest people in the world in terms of the amount of wealth they control (and that's the real wealth and not just personal net worth) are the ones who can extend and withhold the financing to wage wars and to do all the other evil things. They control the currencies. They hold monopoly power over the money printing presses. They ultimately have the funds to buy off all the politicians they need to ultimately control the world, which they do.
There are so many people in the U.S. who are being so naively parochial. They look back upon the 1950's United States with great nostalgia for all of its manufacturing prowess and high-paying, muscular, blue-collar jobs. Well, those were the days when the U.S. had oil left in Texas. Those were the days before Europe and Japan were rebuilt after WWII. Those were the days before the ultra-rich investors in the U.S. started to want to go even more global by not only opening up markets for goods, services, and raw materials but for sources of labor. After all, if the rich are going to get richer, don't they need workers all over the world earning a pay check to be able to buy things and consume so the rich can take their cut from a much bigger pie? That's what this is all about.
The ultra-rich do care about their immediate family members, but they don't give a damn about yours relative to theirs. It doesn't matter if you call yourself American or whether you're White or Anglo-Saxon much anymore. In fact, it is mattering less and less with every passing day. It does still matter to most Jews whether or not you are a Jew but only if you are the "right kind of Jew" — meaning so long as you are for Jewish supremacy. That too will change, just as Anglo-Saxons aren't sticking together anymore.
Well, the truth of the matter is that Jesus show the way to caring about people based upon whom those people care about. The spirit is what matters. This is going to be a global world and finally the people who care about all the people are the ones who will own it all together and rule it as each other's loving servants — thank God, literally.
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)