PEACE TALKS WORK: TAIWAN AND MAINLAND CHINA

This can't be happening according to The Bush Doctrine. Talking doesn't work. It can't. However, it does! If the Americans hadn't been duped by wicked Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter would have delivered peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. He would have done that by high-level talks. However, even Reagan talked with Gorbachev. How can it be that Reagan was smarter than the neocons today running George W. Bush?

Taiwan, China each agree to set up offices

By DEBBY WU, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 12, 10:35 PM ET

BEIJING - Taiwan and China formally agreed to expand charter flights and tourism Friday, a day after announcing plans to set up permanent offices in each other's territory for the first time in decades of hostility.

There were few details and no time frame was given for establishing the offices, which could perform consular functions such as issuing travel documents.

Yet coming on Thursday, the first day of formal talks between the sides in a decade, the agreement lends strong momentum toward efforts to build confidence and spur cooperation between the two sides, which divided amid civil war in 1949 and whose relationship has veered between strained to outright hostile.

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.
    • Rusty Freedom

      "Charter flights have been limited to four annual Chinese holidays"

      This is the report in today's news about China/Taiwan travel talks on cnn.com. Two days ago, cnn.com reported the start of the talks and remarked 'transportation between the two has not been allowed for 59 years' (a nutty statement!).

      If cnn.com hopes to suceed in the propaganda game, they ought to at lease remember their 'lie-bylines' for a couple of days!

    • Hello Rusty Freedom,

      Are you saying you are with those who are opposed to peace negotiations?

      All the major, mainstream-news corporations in the U.S. are actively engaged in negative propaganda for the U.S. administration.

      Jesus Christ said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Are you calling him a liar? I'm not saying you are, but your comment is unclear since it attacks CNN while this post is about George W. Bush and his backers being completely wrong when they claim that talking to one's enemies is wrong. Of course, all informed people know full well that the Bush administration is constantly using back channels to talk with those it calls enemies.

      God bless everyone in the universe,

      Tom Usher

    • Rusty Freedom

      >> "your comment is unclear since it attacks CNN while this post is about George W. Bush and his backers being completely wrong when they claim that talking to one’s enemies is wrong."

      Your blog was shown as a link to the cnn.com story, so I used this as as an opportunity to voice my opposition to this false statement by cnn. Statements such as this clearly serve to foster division, distrust, and prejudice.

      >> Jesus Christ said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Are you calling him a liar?

      No, I would love to believe that his statement is true. Because I support his position I feel compelled to speak out against the voices of anti-peace. Jesus also said "Love thy enemies". Does this have any meaning in the International arena? Perhaps at least talking to our enemies would lead to a better understanding of them, and give them a better understanding of us. Complete abstinance from attempts to understanding one another only leaves us with wild conjecture and entrenched positions. Perhaps both sides in many conflicts feel secure that they are acting from a noble, morally superior position. Viewing the conflict from this pinnacle makes it easy to justify horrific injustices against our fellow man. In most conflicts, many of the victims are citizens who do not even participate in the ideological debate - much less the actual war. In this case, either position can be seen as necessary, but isn't killing the innocent always by definition - immoral?

      >> "All the major, mainstream-news corporations in the U.S. are actively engaged in negative propaganda for the U.S. administration."

      I wouldn't disagree with this statement very much. At the very least, false statements are repeated as a matter of course in the world of news reporting either knowingly or by outright ignorance to support a position. Which major news organization in this country of a 'free and open' press allow a facility to ask direct questions from the citizens about a story? I would really like to know of one. Being able to make statements from such a bully pulpit and allowing no dissent or questions is very powerful, but neither 'free' nor 'open' IMO.

      So I deeply appreciate people like you providing this avenue for normal citizens to ask questions, and to disagree in the public arena. I believe the 'Prince of Peace' encouraged us to understand each other, and this is facilitated by discourse, discussion, dialog and by seeking to find and understand the basic disagreements which divide us. Aren't these essential steps on a journey to peace?

    • Hello Rusty Freedom,

      Your blog was shown as a link to the cnn.com story, so I used this as as an opportunity to voice my opposition to this false statement by cnn.

      I see. Where was it linked if you recall?

      No, I would love to believe that his statement is true.

      "...would love to believe" is noncommittal. Why don't you believe it for sure?

      ...isn't killing the innocent always by definition - immoral?

      Killing anyone, guilty or not, is wrong.

      ...seeking to find and understand the basic disagreements which divide us.

      It is part of the process, but we must not stop until we have reached the root cause of evil, which is selfishness. Even when we don't reach that point, the real Christian will nevertheless never use violence against anyone. Even when Jesus cleaned the temple, he killed no one, he injured no one. It was only beneficial if they would see it.

      God bless,

      Tom

    • Rusty Freedom

      >> Where was it linked if you recall?

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/06/12/china.taiw...

      See 'From the Blogs' at the bottom of the article.

      >> “…would love to believe” is noncommittal. Why don’t you believe it for sure?

      Because Peacemakers are not always blessed - at times they are hated, cursed, reviled, etc. I heard a professing Christian say that the person who finally brings peace to the middle east is the anti-Christ (!). Apparently some churches teach that following the path of peace is evil.

      >> we must not stop until we have reached the root cause of evil, which is selfishness

      This is stated well in the Four Noble Truths proposed by the man called the Buddha, paraphrasing his statements ....

      - Life is suffering

      - The cause of suffering is desire (selfishness)

      - To stop suffering, you must control desire

      - To control desire, you must follow a 12 step program

      Well, he actually called it the 8-fold path to enlightenment :)

      >> Even when Jesus cleaned the temple, he killed no one, he injured no one.

      Yes, according to biblical accounts Jesus followed (or led, depending on your position) a non-violent approach to life. The bible also states "thou shalt not kill" and I can't find an asterisk that details any caveats to this command. So I would agree with you, a person who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus must also be a proponent of non-violence.

    • Hello Rusty Freedom,

      Because Peacemakers are not always blessed - at times they are hated, cursed, reviled, etc. I heard a professing Christian say that the person who finally brings peace to the middle east is the anti-Christ (!). Apparently some churches teach that following the path of peace is evil.

      I see how you're using the term "blessed." There is no doubt that I'm hated, cursed, and reviled. Jesus was too. When he said, Blessed are the peacemakers, he immediately followed with, for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9). We are to understand it as present/future. Of course, it will be in the eternal, so the wait won't have amounted to much in the vast configuration of things.

      Most churches teach that peace is evil. They will set up a question about standing there as a pacifist watching innocent children being killed rather than coming to their rescue via violent means to stop the evil. They don't understand that the spirit of evil thrives upon wrath and that the only way is to overcome it. They don't understand that the murdered will go to God. They don't understand the Christians (men, women, and children) being led into the arena to be slaughtered by ravenous lions and other means. Of course, we are to do everything in our power to prevent violence. Our power though comes from the truth of non-violence.

      Most people professing Christianity don't understand that the anti-Christ brings a false peace through war. We have many antichrists. The churches are full of them.

      As for Buddhism, in Christianity, we retain desire, very strong desire. We desire love, peace, truth, all righteousness, all God. Of course, one cannot preclude that Siddhartha might agree depending upon context and connotations. I can't speak for him. I don't know whether he would have accepted Jesus Christ. Jesus could be very intense. He was very passionate.

      Thank you for your thoughts.

      God bless,

      Tom