Evil, sheer evil

To Hell with all this "being soft on terrorism" talk. The Democrats are being soft on Fascism. This is ripe for extreme abuse.

The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent abuses by the domestic government. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud of the Democrats. He loved abusive powers. He used them against many people who were only trying to make the world a truly better place.

If the U.S. government keeps up this direction, it will head into violent revolution. I'm opposed to violent revolution. I'm for total pacifism. I'm also though opposed to Fascism since it is the opposite of real peace.

The members of both houses of Congress are playing with fire that they just don't fathom. The Wrathful spirit comes out from both nature and human kind.

It's monstrous. All the domestic spying was against the law. All the telecom conspirators are criminals along with everyone in the government who conspired right along with them. Now though, the Congress is retroactively attempting to make it all legal. They assume too much power unto themselves. There will be the devil to pay.

Warrants were devised in an attempt to prevent governmental abuse. Armed with an innocent person's personal and even confidential correspondence, political monsters can harm the innocent from the dark. It happened before the Bill of Rights. That's why they were written. Now though, the U.S. Congress is saying that the letter and spirit of the Bill of Rights is no good.

Well, the Bill of Rights is supposedly the supreme mundane law of this country. This new so-called law will have to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. We shall see whether or not at least five "justices" will uphold the U.S. Constitution and tell the Congress that they got it wrong, which they most certainly did.

FISA was already a terrible stretch. There should never have been a secret court. Now they are simply practically doing away with any judicial oversight at all.

Here are the Democrats giving George W. Bush more than he had expected while they should be impeaching him and reversing nearly every decisions of his whole grotesque administration.

Friday, June 20, 2008
The Democratic Capitulation on Telecom Immunity
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Not surprisingly, the Democratic-controlled Congress has once again capitulated to the president, this time agreeing to a "compromise" bill that grants immunity to telecom companies that knowingly and intentionally broke the law that prohibited them from sharing confidential information about their customers with the government.

Outraged customers sued the companies for damages, and the president has now prevailed on Congress to immunize the companies from those lawsuits, just as the president secured immunity from criminal prosecution for torture and murder committed by CIA officials. Even worse, the Democrats, no doubt fearful of once again being called soft on terrorism, even agreed to expand the president's wiretapping powers.


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.