A long time ago, when I was many decades younger, I learned a hard lesson. Someone working in the same company with me did something I found to be unethical. I asked the person if he ever wanted to work in the industry within the entire metropolitan area again. I thought the industry was vastly more monolithic in its spirit of ethics than it was. I was also ignorant back then about how wrong it was to be making such veiled threats even though I thought at the time I was on the side of higher moral ground.
When I hear U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice say that Russia is risking its place in "the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century," I'm reminded of my years when I was wet behind the ears or green (unseasoned). Ms. Rice doesn't seem to comprehend that Russia is actually in a stronger position now than it was when it was the Soviet Union. You think I'm off my rocker because I say that?
The Soviet Union was strong, but it wasn't needed. Russia is needed by Europe at least until the Europeans get wise and go totally solar and wind power, etc. It's why Sarkozy rushed to Moscow. He isn't 100% on board with the Bush administration about the Georgia gambit. Neither is Germany. Sarkozy though has staked much of his position on warming up to the Bush administration, so any expressions of negativity about the Bush policy will be highly diplomatic.
Imagine what he said in Russia to assuage the Russians all the while with the Russians knowing full well that Sarkozy had a long talk with George W. Bush beforehand.
Sarkozy though is French. He's partially Jewish (a Zionist somewhat), but he's French. He isn't an American, and he's been in political trouble in France lately. The last thing he needs are the French people (very independent minded when it comes to America) becoming extremely upset about Washington's stirring up more trouble for the sake of the U.S. energy corporations. That is what this is all about of course. It all translates into money.
So, in addition to the neocons wanting more U.S. military hardware (sales, sales, sales) in Europe and to knock out the U.N. and to undercut Russian oil and gas sales to Europe (market domination), the neocons want to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe so Russia won't join the E.U., which it might have eventually otherwise.
Think of an E.U. with Russia. Wow. Now that would be an Empire. Of course, that prospect frightens the U.S. nearly to death. That's why the neocons are pushing hard behind the scenes for the North American Union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States with dominance over South America that the U.S. neocons are planning to re-establish one way or another. They are denying this, but that's what they do — lie. They don't really care if you know either, because so many Americans know it and know that they are getting theirs now via that very lying. It's a national thing: Lying, pretending. I know. I'm an American. I hate it: The lying. I want the liars out of every position of authority, and it will happen one day and globally.
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)