DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND REPUBLICAN PARTY BOTH REPORTEDLY MISSED TEXAS DEADLINE TO BE ON PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT
We aren't required to say it, but we don't stand for or against candidates for secular office. This comes from Bob Barr's campaign. We link to it here solely so the people may see that the system is riddled with hypocrisy and shall fall.
Police Clash with Demonstrators, Make Arrests at RNC
"At 5pm central, the protesters' permit expired, but demonstrators refused to leave."
What does that mean? Where does the U.S. Constitution even hint at the right to protest expiring? It isn't as if anyone else's rights are in the balance. 5 PM isn't the dead of night when protests might disturb the otherwise relative peace and quiet. It also isn't as if downtown Minneapolis is a residential neighborhood that would compound the importance of a quiet time for others. This 5 PM thing sticks out as the sore thumb letting everyone know that protestors are second-class citizens in the U.S. even though the U.S. was founded on violent revolution. I don't hold with violent revolution, but the utter hypocrisy is blatant of these self-appointed authorities telling citizens that their right to protest expires whenever those authorities decide.
There is no 5 PM deadline on protest in the U.S. No one needs a permit to demonstrate. Why do people apply for such permits? Of course, it depends upon the nature of the demonstration. Being on public property, not preventing others from being able to come or go, not assaulting others, not being violent or destructive is enough to meet all the requirements for not being impeded by the authorities concerning any protest or demonstration.
Any U.S. Supreme Court Justice who might think otherwise ought to, by rights under the secular system, be impeached post haste.
U.S. Rescue Seen at Hand for 2 Mortgage Giants
This New York Times story says the U.S. federal government will use general revenue (taxpayer dollars) to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies. The idea is that those two are too big to be allowed to fail for having been mismanaged. Well, if those two are too important to allow to fail, then why is anyone not important enough to help? What I mean is why are there any poor and hungry children in the U.S.?
Don't tell me it's because their parents are no good. The truth is that the system is rigged for the plutocrats (the superrich).
Though the Middle East is awash in arms, the Democratic Party platform endorses President Bush's memorandum pledging an additional unconditional $30 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel. The platform thereby rejects calls by human rights activists that military assistance to foreign governments be made conditional on their compliance with international humanitarian law and outstanding UN Security Council resolutions.
Similarly, the Democratic platform appears to endorse the Bush administration's racist double standards regarding Israel and Palestine. It pledges to "continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements" while failing to call for isolating Likud and other extremist Israeli parties that similarly fail to renounce attacks against civilians, recognize Palestine's right to exist, and abide by past agreements.
The platform takes what appears to be a strong stand in support of human rights and freedom, arguing that the United States must be "a relentless advocate for democracy" and a steadfast opponent of repressive regimes. Promoting democracy became a key rationalization in the bipartisan call for the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironically, however, the platform only mentions by name autocratic governments over which the United States has relatively little influence. For example, the platform states, "We will stand up for oppressed people from Cuba to North Korea and from Burma to Zimbabwe and Sudan." Meanwhile, the platform fails to mention any allied autocracies over which the United States could potentially have far more significant influence. It says nothing about standing up for oppressed people from Saudi Arabia to Equatorial Guinea and from Brunei to Egypt and Azerbaijan, whose governments all receive U.S. aid and diplomatic support.
This piece is excellent at pointing to the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party platform.
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)