On so-called conservative sites (neocon, because they sure aren't libertarian), I keep running into Bill Ayers, Bill Ayers, Bill Ayers, who was a Weather Underground member back in the 1960s. The Weather Underground was a militant, revolutionary group, sort of like Benjamin Franklin — not exactly, since Ben was also a member of the ultra-evil Hellfire Club.

Well, I don't support militancy regardless, but the self-styled conservatives are being hypocritical to say the least. Where is their concern about who was behind 9/11? I don't hear them calling for thorough investigations. Also, if bombing isn't the right way to go, why did they support the bombing of Iraq to get Iraq's oil under ultimate U.S. control?

The fact is that these false conservatives only talk about one side of an issue at a time. They never look at anything accept for how they've already spun it and dispensed with the fuller implications (logic).

So, this Bill Ayers person was wrong back in the 1960s and Barack Obama has some indirect connection to him. However, the people in the U.S. government who deliberately facilitated 9/11 were also wrong and those erring people invaded Iraq under a tissue of lies, but they are neocons, so the phony right just ignores that.

I hate that fruit. It's rotten to the core. Don't speak unless you're willing to speak about all sides to get to the truth, the whole truth.


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.
    • To that one might add the observation that they try to update their web of deceit to further push whatever is currently most active in their long-term agenda.

      Given that, it seems significant that less and less is there any effort at all to hide their extremism, but rather it is promoted.

      When people who routinely spy and assassinate act like that, oversight doesn't seem to be something that is any concern.

      Of course, since square one indefinite detainment without a fair trial and torture has been policy. That is a low bar to slither under.

    • @opit - "...less and less is there any effort at all to hide their extremism...."

      I must say, John, I agree with you. The choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain's team and handlers (plutocrats), what with her Holy War and Christian Crusader mentality, is an in-your-face choice.

      They've been numbing the people. They've been inundating them to break them down, to wear them out. It isn't working though. As I've written over and over, they are playing with fire. They don't know their own limitations. They are being arrogant beyond belief.

      They are puffed up and prideful. It does come before the fall.

      Let me say this as clearly as possible. God is not in favor of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. God knows the lies (all of them) that have been told about detentions and torture and all the rest. God is not pleased. Satan is the one who likes the invasion and occupation because Satan gets the souls to devour and to treat in kind.

      Sure, it's figurative, but it's still true.

      Blessings all,

      Tom Usher