TASERS, PEPPER SPRAY, AND ARRESTS: BEATING THEM WHILE THEY'RE DOWN IN NEW ORLEANS

God is watching New Orleans. Yes, New Orleans was a city with a bad reputation. Yes, there are people who really did want to be on the dole and still do and to not pitch in or work if they can get away with it. However, that doesn't mean that everyone in New Orleans who was poor or living on assistance or in public housing was the cause of the bad reputation or didn't want to work. Those are just bad excuses used primarily by racists, since New Orleans had a high-percentage Black population.

Hurricane Katrina was something the rich White racists were glad happened. They've taken every advantage of it they can to takeover the land for gentrification projects and to keep the poor from returning and having affordable housing and public services. The rich Whites have used the shock of New Orleans as an opportunity to privatize as much as possible, thereby pricing the poor out of the area. It's sheer selfish, greedy evil. They have taken to using police brutality against the poor and those with them speaking up on their behalf.

Here's in-depth coverage: "Tasers, Pepper Spray, and Arrests in the Struggle for Affordable Housing in New Orleans," by Bill Quigley. Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch. December 28, 2007.

The treatment described in that article is only one step above the transfer policy of the Israelis against the Palestinians. It's nearing the level of the South African Apartheid regime.

What's the matter with those people on that New Orleans City Council? The answer is that they're sick. They're sick in their souls. Their hearts are waxed cold. They are doing the exact wrong thing. They should be building affordable housing and addressing all the issues that gave New Orleans its bad reputation at the same time. They should be focused upon how to employ the poor with the best, safest, cleanest, well-paid, truly productive, green work possible. They should be concerned with educating the children and caring for the sick and old. They should be working toward reducing crime by giving people better choices than criminal proceeds. They should be lifting the people by showing the way to the light. Rather, they are bringing greater darkness than existed before Katrina.

Donate


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.