WHAT KARL ROVE, TONY REZKO, AND WILLIAM AYERS HAVE IN COMMON

Concerning Barrack Obama, we are hearing about Tony Rezko and William Ayers over and over from the FOX News sorts.

Rezko has connections (alleged; mundanely, he's pleaded not guilty and his trial is in process at the time of this writing) to political and business corrupt practices. Rezko is accused of sleazy business and political dealings particularly in Chicago and Illinois. He contributed to Obama and did real-estate favors for Obama.

Ayers is a former member of the Weather Underground that was a militant anti-establishment group. He admits to having conducted bombings and has said he doesn't regret it and wishes he had done more. Obama has been on various panels with Ayers and Ayers is said to have made personal political contributions to Obama's campaign. It has been reported that Obama and Ayers have had some personal social interaction that suggest Obama condones Ayers' past. Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Obama was a law professor at University of Chicago.

Coupled with the attacks upon Obama's former preacher, Jeremiah Wright, these people represent the fascists' main attacks on Obama so far.

Now, Rezko also co-chaired a huge fund-raiser for President George W. Bush. So, if it isn't okay that Obama took contributions or help from Rezko, then it also isn't okay for Bush to have done it either.

Here's the deal. The system itself is inherently corrupt. It is self-centered. It is predatory. It is impossible to function within it and be clean by divine standards without knowing more than the system itself. Even Jesus didn't stop evil persons from throwing into the treasury. Who is clean? Whose money isn't out of the evil system of Caesar? The question is what did Jesus do with the funds. When someone throws into the common treasury of the Christian Commons, how is the money then sanctified?

The money (perceived psychological value; agreed value) is translated out of Caesar's system and into the giving-and-sharing economic system. It is placed upon the altar where the gold is sanctified, just as Jesus said. The evil is stopped. The cycle ends. The evil doesn't go full circle. Goodness is return for evil. This is as it should be.

It is not to encourage Robin Hood to steal from the rich to give to the Christian Commons. However, Jesus does not coerce Robin Hood but rather encourages Robin to turn from stealing.

As for Ayers, the likes of Karl Rove will focus upon him but will not turn the exact same logic against torturers and murders of millions for Empire. Rove will rationalize away or more so ignore the wrong-doing of his ilk. Ayers used the fire of evil to fight the fire of evil. He returned evil for evil. Rove does exactly the same thing only on a much larger scale. Rove unashamedly fights for the greedy. Ayers falsely imagines he is on the side of the oppressed. In relative terms, Ayers is closer to the kingdom concerning this issue. However, unless one is through the strait gate and stays on the narrow way, one misses the real Heaven in the end. Militancy is offense. Evil must come, but woe to the one by whom it comes regardless of whether or not he believes he is fighting for what is right.

Also, if the shady dealings of Rezko are evil, then the shady dealings of all of Rove's ilk are also evil.

Karl Rove has admitted to doing dirty political tricks. He was brought up on them through the ranks since even before George W. Bush's father was in the White House. Dirty tricks are Karl stock and trade. Yet, FOX News has hired the wholly unrepentant Karl Rove at a huge salary to continue giving totally one-sided stories.

This is the evil. Each side gives only the negative about the other side while never consistently using the exact same logic in speaking about the negatives of its own side. Each side only speaks of the positives of its side or at best excusing itself because the other side does it (evil) too. This is evil for evil. Nothing good ever comes out from either side. Both ends reside upon the same spectrum the nature of which is entirely false. Move up and down that spectrum from end-to-end, and you will never arrive at goodness. Goodness resides on a completely different spectrum: The real (perfect).

99.9%-plus of the human race doesn't even know this. Karl Rove and his ilk believe that the spectrum upon which they operate is all dog-eat-dog. He's right. It is the Machiavellian, neocon spectrum after all. What Rove and others don't know is that there is another spectrum. They believed that the other spectrum is unreal and for suckers. That other spectrum is the one on which Jesus resides. It is the one on which I want to reside and the one on which the whole of humanity must come to reside to save the world and not to perish.

The way to save the world is to spread the word. The evil-hearted fight against the word. They try to kill it, just as they murdered Jesus. However, they were not able to kill the word. In fact, they fell into their own trap when they murdered Jesus.

Now, if you believe that there is nothing hereafter, then you are free in your imagination to do anything you want and the only punishment is that which other humans can dish out. In that worldly world (matter only as matter is defined by those of scientism with the possible exception of some of the most advance theoretical physicists who are bumping up against metaphysics), there is no morality. There is only manipulating one another for selfish reasons.

If you believe Jesus though that there is more than yet meets the eye, than can be comprehended from the starting place of the world-view of the naysayers, then you will come to know that self is one with others of your same spirit or emotional state that is unselfishness where self is viewed from the naysayers perspective. In fact, the naysayers do not believe that unselfishness is possible.

They believe that no matter what, in the end, one is acting in one's own selfish best interest at best. This is a matter of semantics of course.

Where the self is the oneness in God, acting in the best interest and viewing that as selfish is the point of departure of the unbelievers from the believers. God is not selfish even though God calls for what is best for all concerned.

This seems contradictory to the unbelievers. They are mistaken and lack comprehension. Others will term it a paradox, since it may be true to them but they still are unable to see the rationality in it. They will take it as a matter of faith rather than also understanding it as reasoned and rational. That is an error.

Jesus was always consistent, reasoning, rational, and faithful.

Spread the word. Do the deeds in consistency. Save the world as one with God. Stand up to the hypocrites like Karl Rove. Don't buy into the hypocrisy of FOX News. Rupert Murdoch's kingdom will utterly collapse. It is prophesied. The only thing that can save anyone is earnest repentance and ending the recidivism. The only thing that can bring that about is raising the standard as Jesus did.

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.