WILL THE PLUTOCRATS RISK VIOLENT REVOLUTION IN THE U.S.?

BACKGROUND:

Concerns about deployment of military on U.S. soil growing — while mainstream media buries its head in the sand: Naomi Wolf
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 9:40am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Naomi Wolf

REPUBLICAN ELECTION CHEATS ARE FLOUTING THE BANKERS

Here's the deal. The Bush people clearly cheated to gain the office of the presidency, both in 2000 and 2004. There are many within their ranks who are still cheating for McCain. The big money is behind Obama. The Rove-type cheaters are right now rogue elements that the plutocrats must rein in or risk violent riots and martial law.

DIRTY TRICKS TURN INTO VIOLENT OVERTHROWS

Obama is mixed race. If Karl Rove's followers continue using their blatant dirty tricks and do in fact steal the election via "untraceable" computer hacks, the Black followers of Obama will riot. They will set cities on fire. However, unlike in many previous U.S. race riots, there will be many non-Blacks siding with them. Bush will call out the First Brigade and others. There will be violence. It could spiral out of control. The powers that be are playing with fire here. They know that. Many believe they can start the fire and control the blaze via superior firepower. However, there is power they aren't factoring in. They don't have a handle on all the variables, contrary to what their mathematicians and computer scientists are imagining.

STRUGGLE WITHIN THE PLUTOCRACY

There is a struggle going on with the plutocracy over the minds within that very plutocracy. What will they do?

How calculatingly reckless are they willing to be? How much risk are they willing to assume they can handle?

They are at once sure of themselves yet uncertain.

ROVE IS A MORAL HAZARD

If the Rove types are allowed to "win" yet again, how much power will shift in such a way that the bankers might be threatened? The military could kick in the doors even on the most secluded and powerful of the banking families. Egos are such that they can be playing their cards very close to the vest. The bankers are not mind readers yet, as much as they'd like to be.

BUYING MORE MIGHT

Of course, money shifts can buy armies and judges. The Rove types need to think. Will certain plutocrats order generals to overthrow the rogues who would be kings?

CAESAR VERSUS CAESAR

What brain will make his move to be the new Caesar coming to the rescue against the old Caesar?

CHARACTERIZATIONS

Do you think this is a mischaracterization?

Donate


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.