The day after the U.S. Justice Department announced it would be investigating the destruction of the CIA torture tapes, California Democratic Congresswomen Jane Harman released a letter she wrote to the CIA general counsel at the time, Scott Muller. She wrote that the tapes shouldn't be destroyed since they would corroborate the written record and destruction would reflect poorly on the CIA's image. The torture shown on the tapes was authorized by President Bush to break down prisoners.
She asked Muller "whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the president?"
Now, here we have a Democrat who was taken on a tour of torture along with Nancy Pelosi and a couple of other Democrats who knew for years that the U.S. was torturing people but rather then blowing the lid off the torture and bringing down the Bush administration for the sake of righteousness, she remained silent, as did the other Democrats. Not only that, but here we see she calls torture "enhanced techniques."
Where's the copy of her letter stating that the U.S. government may not waterboard people or do the other torture procedures? Where is the record of the Democratic leadership meeting with the President in which they informed him that he may not give such illegal authorization and must issue a clear and public directive to be sure that everyone knows that torture is internationally illegal under all circumstances, period? There are no such letters or records. Of course, we know that no Democrat stepped forward to stop the torture. We know that Nancy Pelosi won't impeach the President or Vice President, because she has too much dirt of her own to keep from coming out.
Where are the Democratic Party candidates vowing openly to investigate everything starting with the lead up to 9/11? They aren't talking about it. So why is anyone voting for any of them?
Well, the whole government is based upon coercion. No one is free under that government, in either the mundane or the divine sense of the term "free." It can't bring forth freedom from evil and want. It can't bring forth the real bounty. It is a house that is forced together, and Heaven cannot be forced. It is a house that is inherently divided, which ruins it for those who want righteousness.
It is time the people wake up. It is time they start calling for righteousness, as Jesus considers righteousness. It is time they ask for the government they ought to want. To Hell with greed, violence, and other forms of harm (depravity). To Hell with selfishness. To Hell with competition rather than cooperation. It is time for the people to call for the ideal. To Hell with the voices calling for striving for less than perfection. We don't want a "more perfect union." We want a perfect union. That's what Jesus calls for. That's real freedom. It's freedom from evil. It's freedom from selfishness and the selfish, evil spirit of greed, violent, and depravity.
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)