So, John McCain accused Barack Obama of wanting to have the superrich help the homeless and hungry get some shelter and some food. Barack Obama didn't respond with that's right. He doesn't want to increase taxes on the superrich to, as McCain said, "spread the wealth around."

Now, why didn't Obama say the superrich have too much and that they aren't going to be hurt by helping to relieve pain and suffering but rather helped in both the short and long runs by giving and sharing, which they would? (Did he? I don't have TV.)

He didn't say it, because he was chosen by the superrich at the last Bilderberg Group meeting, which he attended in secret.

It isn't for Obama to decide if and when taxes will be raised one the superrich. If he were to have gone against the Bilderberg Group, they would have motioned for their machine (media corporations) to destroy him in the public's perception.

Of course, there are only two peaceful ways to improve the plight of the poor. One is temporary. The other is permanent. The first is via coercive tax increases. That's the mundane way. The other is via the voluntary Christian Commons Project™.

John McCain has no problem with coercion or with taking from the poor to give to the superrich. He just has a problem with the common people, those not born to the manor. John was born to the manor. So was George W. Bush. So were their fathers. So were their father's fathers.... Understand?

Christians they weren't and still aren't.


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.
    • Thomas James

      I missed this mornings religious right broadcast about the presidential debate but what they were telling the people is that owners of small businesses like Joe the Plumber while it is true that he may gross $250,000 by the time he pays all his materials and employee salaries and benefits and higher taxes that will go to wealth redistribution he will be left with so little money that he will have no choice but to file bankruptcy and this will result in job losses for millions of Americans so we have no choice but to vote Republican so that these small businesses and their employees can be protected.

      I tried to explain to my wife who has never filed a tax return by herself that one is not taxed based on ones gross income but rather the net income or profit after all the business expenses are paid. So in actuality this poor Joe the Plumber would have to generate at least a million dollars per year in gross income in order to generate a $250,000 profit in which case he should easily be able to afford to pay higher taxes but of course my wife did not believe me because I do not have control over the news media.

    • @Thomas James - Who are the so-called religious-right broadcasters you're usually monitoring? Which one will enter the Kingdom before the tax-collectors and prostitutes?

      What the rich televangelists are promoting is more and more opportunity for the rich to make a profit off those they keep down. If all the people share the cost of healthcare for all according to each taxpayer's ability to pay for instance, then Joe the plumber's business won't have to pay workers compensation insurance or healthcare premiums on his employees. His business costs will go way, way down. The reason the rich don't like that is because then the rich won't be able to take a cut of the premiums. That's all there is to it. It isn't complicated.

      Most U.S. federal taxes are going to the Pentagon and to pay interest on the national debt run up by the Federal Reserve for the benefit of the superrich.

      The people aren't shown the total defense budget on just one line in the budget. The line that is labeled Defense doesn't reflect all the costs of the military (which is antichrist, of course, by definition), such as long-term veterans care, etc. They keep lots of the military expenses on other lines that are not accounted as sub-categories of defense. Military costs actually far, far exceed all social entitlements combined.

      Get rid of the satanic military, close the bases, bring all the troops home, and get rid of the interest-bearing (evil usury) currency, and you will have gone a huge distance in curing what ails the mundane economy and whole of existence. Military isn't peace. Blessed are the peacemakers, not the war makers.

      As for your family's debates, your wife is not a public figure as far as I know. The tendency today is to be very open about family matters. People need time to reflect. Different people have different levels of sensitivity and coping skills. I can only speak to things on a certain level given the format of website commenting. Comment text can reveal a great deal, but it isn't the same thing as being there. I trust you understand.

      Regardless, I'm glad to have you here communicating.

      God bless your family, your house, and everything that is in it, Thomas.

      Tom Usher