AP - Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are walking a delicate line as they promise to aggressively tackle global warming while trying to assure voters that they continue to believe in the future of coal.

...increased mechanization has produced a dramatic decline in coal industry employment....

..."clean coal" has become the mantra of both candidates. Some environmentalists are not too happy with that.

"They keep using the term 'clean coal.' That's really an oxymoron," snaps Brent Blackwelder, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth. "They absolutely are pandering the coal industry's propaganda that clean coal is the hope of the future. There's no such animal as clean coal."

...neither has embraced the call by Al Gore and many Democrats in Congress for a moratorium on new coal burning power plants until carbon capture can be commercially developed.

...the candidates' pitches [are comparable] to their embrace of corn-produced ethanol in Farm Belt states such as Iowa.

At times, walking the line between coal and environmentalists hasn't been easy, especially when the topic became mountaintop mining, a practice prevalent in West Virginia, where large areas of mountain tops are stripped away to reach the coal.

Clinton drew the ire of some environmentalists when in public radio interview there she said she was "concerned" about mountaintop mining but also viewed it as an "economic and environmental trade-off" that must be "looked at ... from a practical perspective."

Facing a group of environmentalists opposed to mountaintop mining at a meeting in the coal town of Beckley, W.Va., Obama also talked about the balance between economics and environmental protection.

"There are environmental consequences to coal extraction," said Obama, "just as there are with any energy source." That's just what some of the mine workers in the audience wanted to hear.

RLCC Comment: What a disaster it is when the picks of the media giants (Clinton and Obama were picked from the start by the major media corporations who gave them tons of cover while making the others appear like born losers) can't even say that mountaintop removal is diabolical. Clinton and Obama give such weak answers to nearly everything. McCain panders too of course.

Why can't they say, "To Hell with mountaintop removal and to dirty energy sources." Why can't they explain to the mine workers that there are better jobs and a higher quality of life waiting for everyone with clean energy now. The new coal plants are being planned as if sequestering were already here. It isn't. Al Gore is absolutely right about that.

Link to source-webpage, obtained via: Yahoo! News: Climate Change, April 19, 2008, 1:04am


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.