The following is the reason that I say the system is fatally flawed. The U.S. is a house divided. It is actually splintered. No amount of work done within the system will ever bring forth true abundance. The system is a forced union. It is based upon coercion. That never works. It never has. It has always brought greed, violence, and other forms of depravity (all selfish and all harmful).
Tuesday June 17, 2008 15:28 EDT
Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law
(Updated below - Update II - Update III
Update IV — Wed. morning)
It is now definitively clear that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is the driving force behind a bill — written by GOP Sen. Kit Bond — to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to vest lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty. Even as his office dishonestly denies that he is doing so, still more reports yesterday — this one from the NYT and this one from Roll Call (sub req'd) — confirm that a so-called "compromise" is being spearheaded by Hoyer and the House Democratic leadership. The ACLU and EFF are holding a joint call tomorrow to denounce Hoyer's "compromise" as nothing more than disguised guaranteed immunity for telecoms and, further, because "the proposed deal could be used to authorize dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
As Judge Walker ruled, the alleged actions by the telecoms "violate the constitutional rights clearly established" by prior Supreme Court rulings and "no reasonable entity in [the telecoms'] position could have believed [the spying program] was legal." Beyond that, the telecoms — by allowing the Bush administration to spy on their customers with no warrants — knowingly violated at least four separate federal statutes (.pdf).
Despite that, Steny Hoyer and other House Democrats are about to block the court from ever ruling on those issues and, instead, hand the telecoms something that no ordinary citizen would ever receive: namely, complete immunity without their ever having to answer for their conduct in a court of law. It is corruption in its most extreme and transparent form.
Hoyer is working to perpetuate a two-tiered system of justice in America where rich corporations with lobbyists and big campaign contributions are literally allowed to break our most serious laws and receive retroactive amnesty, while ordinary citizens have their lives destroyed over the pettiest offenses, as America turns itself into the world's largest prison state.
...By compelling the dismissal of lawsuits against telecoms even if they broke our domestic spying laws, Hoyer and other House Democrats are about to trample on what they called — when it came time righteously to rail against George Bush — the "fundamental tenet  of equal treatment under the law."
More amazingly still, Hoyer himself — back in March of this year — pointed to the above-cited ruling from Judge Walker and argued that amnesty for telecoms would be corrupt and wrong. This is what Hoyer himself said back then:
Let me remind my colleagues of the statement by Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge of the Northern District of California, in a case involving AT&T's participation in this warrantless program.
Judge Walker, a Republican appointee, wrote: "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."
I submit that a reasonable –- responsible -– Congress would not seek to immunize conduct without knowing what conduct or misconduct it is immunizing.
What Steny Hoyer back in March called unreasonable and irresponsible is exactly what he is now about to do.
Finally, just listen to this lecture Hoyer gave on the House floor back in March when speaking out against telecom amnesty. In it, he said "the most important thing this body does" is "uphold the law. Not just pass the law. Uphold the law." Yet now, he's about to betray what he said is the "most important thing" the Congress does — "uphold the law" — by giving immunity to companies that Hoyer himself said very likely broke the law and violated the Constitutional rights of Americans, and by vesting the type of domestic spying powers in the President which — as our own Government repeatedly has said — are the hallmark of tyrannical regimes.
* Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd have issued a joint statement vehemently condemning this "compromise."
Regarding Hoyer's ongoing, false denials that he is engineering the bill to provide telecom amnesty, yesterday's article from The Hill specifically says that "[t]he latest development comes after Rockefeller, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and the Bush administration reached an accord late last week to break a weeks-long stalemate over balancing electronic surveillance with the right to privacy for American citizens, according to several people familiar with the talks." ...
The fact that Hoyer is outright lying about his central role in this deal, along with what is obviously the insultingly deceptive plan of Congressional Democrats to pretend that this bill somehow doesn't provide amnesty when the bill makes immediate and conclusory dismissal of the telecom lawsuits a foregone conclusion (without any inquiry into whether telecoms broke our laws) — a sham process which the ACLU calls "judicial theater" — only compounds the cravenness and deceit here.
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)