Republicans for Environmental Protection have been endorsing John McCain for President of the United States. ("Why We Endorsed John McCain: An Early Endorsement in the 2008 Presidential Race," by Jim DiPeso. The Daily Green. November 19, 2007.)
Yes, why? Well, they are Republicans and for environmental protection. What choice do they have other than to become something other than Republicans if they are going to remain in favor of coercive measures to counteract environmental destruction for the sake of the used-to-be Almighty Dollar?
...no other Republican candidate understands as well as McCain that energy is a convergence of security, economic, and climate risks requiring action today. No other GOP candidate has given the interrelated web of energy and climate issues the kind of thoughtful consideration or offered the legislative solutions that he has.
McCain championed greenhouse gas emissions reductions before it was cool and well before it was popular.
The Pack Catches Up to McCain
Let's focus on climate for a minute. Today, climate change is the topic of the hour. Republicans are climbing aboard the bandwagon. Even Fred Thompson, who last April ridiculed the issue with allusions to global warming on Pluto, is now saying that climate change is real.
Just last week, a bipartisan group of senators, led by John Warner (R-VA), a GOP stalwart, and Joe Lieberman (Kinda Sorta D-CT), introduced a cap-and-trade bill, America's Climate Security Act, to cut greenhouse gas emissions nearly two-thirds by 2050.
One of the co-sponsors is Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), not the first name that the green set would list as a congressional environmental champion.
The same day that Warner and Lieberman dropped their bill, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) put out a press release calling for a sector-by-sector approach, rather than an economy-wide cap.
That's a good sign. Congress is debating how, not whether. Let the reactionary bloggers, radio gasbags, and self-important TV pundits blather on that climate change is a leftwing plot to bring down capitalism. Business leaders, states, cities, conservationists, academics, and ordinary citizens have accepted the science, moved on, and are ready to discuss practical solutions.
But it wasn't so long ago that McCain's was a lonely voice in the GOP calling on his colleagues to take climate change seriously.
A Republican Answer to Global Warming
His evolution as a climate change leader dates to the 2000 presidential campaign. In February of that year, a few of our REP leaders managed to wangle a meeting with McCain at the Phoenix airport. As McCain and his entourage entered the Sky Harbor conference room, the very first words out of his mouth were, "What do I tell them about global warming? Everywhere I go, people are asking me about global warming. I need a good Republican answer! Can you help me?"
The REP leaders looked at each other, gulped, and said, Senator, we'll write you a policy paper on the topic. So we did.
Shortly thereafter, the McCain campaign ended in the bottomlands of South Carolina.
Now, we can't take all the credit for what happened after McCain returned to the Senate, but we like to think that we helped plant an idea in his head. Beginning in 2001, he started looking into the climate issue. He held hearings, questioned scientists, and turned the topic over in his mind.
He led expeditions to the ends of the earth — Alaska, Antarctica, and Greenland — to educate his Senate colleagues. He and Lieberman sponsored legislation, the Climate Stewardship Act, similar to the bill introduced last week.
And, most importantly for Republicans, he has framed the issue in conservative terms. In an energy policy speech last April, he dismissed critics who say the effects of climate change are too uncertain or too distant in time to warrant action.
"I'm a proud conservative, and I reject that kind of live-for-today, 'me-generation' attitude," he said. "It is unworthy of us and incompatible with our reputation as visionaries and problem-solvers. Americans have never feared change. We make change work for us."
Nearly a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt said, "Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation." TR's insight about stewardship is as timely today as it was then. REP is convinced that John McCain gets that, and that's why we endorsed him for president.
Let's discuss a few things here. First, every little bit both helps and hurts. Every little bit of environmental concern is better for the other person and better for the whole, even if it's coming from a selfish motivation. It is better still if it is coming from an unselfish motivation, of course; because, then, it will be much more movable to the dynamic, real, ultimate solution that is itself the spirit of unselfishness. It would be the Golden Rule rather than cap-and-trade. Every little bit of holding back from unselfishness hurts. It retards the Holy Spirit acting within for the sake of the whole who is God when felt and understood properly.
There are some terms Jim DiPeso used above that if considered in the fullest context will reveal why John McCain, despite being the best Republican running concerning environmental issues, is not the right person to lead the world's still most powerful and dangerous superpower. (It really points to why people shouldn't choose the Republican Party or any secular solution at all; however, if you don't already have the Holy law written on your heart and yet want to come to understand that aspect, you'll have to do a great deal of reading on this site and in the scriptures.) So, "security" is one such term that reveals McCain's short-sightedness.
John McCain is first and foremost a militant imperialist. It is no small matter that Theodore Roosevelt is John's hero. McCain has always been a Teddy Roosevelt (T.R.) Republican. That's a very mixed bag. Roosevelt was the consummate trustbuster for one. He was a leading Progressive. He was the great conservationist for another. However, he was also the most muscle-flexing and unabashed U.S. imperialist president in American history. He really didn't walk so softly, but he did carry a big stick and used it for increasing U.S. Empire. His was gunboat diplomacy, and he didn't mind kicking around banana republics. He was a believer in noblesse oblige. The nobles are obliged to condescend to the inferior peoples of the Earth. However, make no mistake about it. Those so-called inferiors are there to be dominated and ruled by Anglo-Saxons first and foremost. This flies in the face of Jesus Christ, who himself was not an Anglo-Saxon and counseled against lording it over others, as the Gentiles (Teddy) do. Now the above go straight to the heart of the other telling terms we should explore.
"Economic(s)" is another such term. As used by Jim DiPeso, economics is still leaning toward laissez faire. Even T.R. was against corruption as he defined it rather than against consolidation, per se. He was, in fact, a huge consolidator (imperialist). It's one of the reasons he was in favor of the Bisbee Deportation for instance.
The Bisbee Deportation was the illegal deportation of about 1,300 striking mine workers, their supporters, and innocent citizen bystanders by 2,000 vigilantes on July 12, 1917. The workers and others were kidnapped in the U.S. town of Bisbee, Arizona, and held at a local baseball park. They were then loaded onto cattle cars and transported 200 miles (320 km) for 16 hours through the desert without food or water. The deportees were unloaded at Hermanas, New Mexico, without money or transportation and threatened not to return to Bisbee. ["Bisbee Deportation," Wikipedia. January 13, 2008.]
T.R. was not anti-union, but he was for business and even big-business so long as it wasn't being corrupt in his eyes (according to his standard, which is too low for any Christian). He had fascist leanings, in that fascism is corporatism where unionism is treated as corporatization of labor to pre-empt and co-opt even pure Christianity, which is non-Marxist and real communism.
Let's consider the "cap-and-trade" measures being promoted by the conservatives. Rather then just cut emissions of toxins, the conservatives treat pollution as a tradable commodity. Those who don't want to stop polluting buy that right from those who have cut pollution. Now, the conservatives say that this will reduce pollution. However, what costs are really being borne by the polluters when their production costs don't rise other than their cost of buying the right to pollute from others who have made the expenditure to cut emissions and have higher operating costs offset by income from polluters? It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's smoke and mirrors. It's voodoo economics. It's a way for the ultra-rich to avoid a pollution tax on a more even playing field. It's a twisted way of attempting to deceive and placate more uninformed people who nevertheless want real-green measures by producers.
The conservative Jim DiPeso wrote, "Shortly thereafter, the McCain campaign ended in the bottomlands of South Carolina." He doesn't though address why that happened. McCain was the focus of a dirty-trick, racist campaign in South Carolina orchestrated by George W. Bush's team. The racists played the race card there. They sent around emails falsely claiming that John McCain fathered a mixed-race child out of wedlock when in fact his wife and he adopted the child. The damage was done though, and McCain's momentum was ruined by dark-art practitioners such as Karl Rove.
If Jim DiPeso and the others interested in real Environmental Protection want to be consistent, they'll have to give up on the coercive approach to rather concentrate upon writing the divine law, which is summated in the New Commandment, upon their hearts. When everyone finally has done that, there won't be any people doing any harm to the environment of anyone else. All will be righteous. Heaven will be everywhere.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matthew 5:16.
If you believe Jesus's words, then show faith. Shine the light. Come together spiritually and in holiness, as one heart and one soul, with all others who likewise believe. Together, we can bring forth the good works for which Jesus calls. Freely give what you receive so all his lambs and sheep may be fed. Cleans the real temple within (the kingdom of Heaven is within; God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwell within) of all that Jesus cleansed from the Temple in Jerusalem (selfish and false gain). The resulting bounty of this synergistic work will be magnified by God and overflow into feeding house after house. Many who would not otherwise see the light will convert to real love until the whole of the Earth shall have been reborn, conflated with Jesus's new vision of Heaven, as prophesied by Isaiah (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22).
Enter Each Other's Labor of Real Love, as Jesus Said
Join. Bring forth. Give to The Christian Commons Project™ to further this message and to translate the money, which Jesus calls unrighteous, out of its evil system into the place where food is free of charge. Free God's people. Continue.
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)