I'm not for either candidate. Neither one of them has the qualities of a real leader. Neither one of them is bound for righteousness (yet). Nevertheless, ever since Richard Nixon quit and a bunch of Democrats swung over to the Republican Party as neocons, the Republicans have become much less likely to carry on an intelligent debate and much more about just being loud and belligerent (the core Democrats were already loud, but not in a fist-throwing sense). It's worn very thin.

The things they draw attention to are so shallow. For instance, they care about American flag lapel pins rather than whether or not hundreds of thousands of innocents are being murdered as a direct result of American policy and practices who would otherwise still be alive and well.

Are they for a shallow patriotism, or are they for adhering to the law? They aren't speaking up for the law. What does the flag supposedly represent to them? It doesn't represent the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, obviously. It represents the ambition of Empire: World domination.

The neocons are attacking Michelle Obama and lauding Cindy McCain, but Cindy McCain stole from her charity to feed her drug addiction.

Not only that, but where are the family values? Where are the so-called values voters? The Republicans went after Clinton on values. Well, John McCain left his first wife for what? Had she cheated on him? That's not what's been said about it at all. She was severely injured in an accident and had gained weight.

He married her with vows that precluded leaving her accept for cause acceptable to Jesus Christ. Biblically, McCain is in an adulterous relationship with Cindy. Think about it.

I'm not condemning John or Cindy. The LORD knows that I need to be forgiven too. I'm just showing the hypocrisy in the situation, just as Jesus exposed hypocrisy. Doing that is a good thing. It's how we'll grow if we will then strive not to be hypocritical.

Cindy said she was sorry. Has she brought forth fruit worthy of repentance? She's mighty rich while there are many homeless and hungry people in the world.

Where is John McCain telling his backers to stop attacking Michelle on such shallow grounds? He could. He could say it very clearly and firmly. A real leader would.

June 15, 2008
Right plays 'Kill the Witch' with Barack Obama's wife
The potential first ladies are facing merciless scrutiny
Sarah Baxter in Washington

If party labels were reversed it is possible that Cindy McCain, who is McCain's second wife, would be getting the harshest scrutiny. McCain, then a navy officer on a relatively poor stipend, wooed Cindy, a rodeo queen, after he returned from Vietnam to find that his wife at that time, Carol, a former beauty queen, had been disabled in a car accident.

The glamorous Cindy was an heiress whose wealth - estimated at $100m - helped to bankroll her husband's political career. She remains an active chairman of Hensley and Co, her late father's beer distribution company, and has released only the sketchiest tax returns under pressure.

It emerged last week that she has run up debts of between $100,000 and $250,000 on her credit card, a level of extravagance that could shock voters. During McCain's first run for president in 2000 it was revealed that she had been addicted to painkillers and had stolen from her own charity's medicine cabinet to feed her habit.

She could be almost as easily pilloried as Teresa Heinz Kerry, the billionaire wife of John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who was criticised as a fortune-chaser.

Instead, it is Michelle Obama's combative style which continues to draw fire. As Maureen Dowd commented in last week's New York Times, Michelle Obama is the newest contestant in the "sulphurous national game of Kill the Witch".

Watch this video. Focus on what he's telling you. Then, ask yourself why would anyone for John McCain attack Barack Obama on account of his wife. The devil isn't being very clever in this, is he? There's a pox upon both houses.


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.