"Change" and "yes we can" change from what to what? That's what matters, not just change for change's sake. Yes we can. Yes we can what? Yes we can go hunt down and kill people?

Listen, Barack Obama is going to kill people. He's going to order and authorize and not prevent death and destruction. He'll do that in the name of preventing greater death and destruction. Nevertheless, he'll preside over a system that will get it wrong — meaning he will kill innocent people.

What the Hell are we doing? Why are we still going backwards?

Barack Obama is not the savior. He's a mixed bag with loads of the dark side spewing from his mouth. I don't care whether he's pink with purple polka dots. He's still spewing garbage. Being half Black doesn't put his policies and practices beyond criticism. He's wrong. He's flat out wrong.

He talks about change while he surrounds himself with just going back to Clinton. Clinton was a mess. His administration looked better than did Bush-41's, Reagan's, and Carter's in many respects, because he rode on and squandered the Peace Dividend and managed to get out just before the dot-com bubble burst that would have blown up in his face if he could have served another term. He presided over the dismantling of U.S. industry without putting anything in its place, such as green industry that was right there in the offering then just as much as it still is now. He was no environmentalist. He played fast and loose with the economic statistics. He made a mess of foreign interventions — killing some 500 thousand Iraqi children. I'm not going to go on here.

Look, I don't judge or condemn Bill Clinton. I'm only pointing out that we could have done vastly better. We could have done vastly better than Barack Obama too. I'm pointing it out now so that when things go wrong, there will be a trail concerning what should have been done.

The nation should have embraced real Christianity, as in it should have embraced, and still should, the political economy laid out by Jesus Christ. We can definitely have the giving and sharing economy that Jesus expressed if we will just stop being so God damned self-centered. It is God damned. The selfishness inherent in the current U.S. economic model doesn't please God. It displeases God.

Look again. Jesus said, But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24)

There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Why is that? Well, to be rich under the current system, one must avoid sharing. One must deprive others. So, that's it. That's all to which the rich may look forward, that it will all be behind them. They will get their reward for the reward they already received, meaning exactly what Jesus said. They have no good reward later, because they were selfish, lying serpents in this world. Think about it. Is that too harsh? No, it is not. It is strong to be a strong warning — to get attention, to drive home the impression.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:33)

Sure, people who never become rich can be guilty of unrepentant lying too. That doesn't excuse anyone though.


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.
    • Such questions always arises in mind “ what is to be changed and to what degrees”. The change of slogan by Obama as I hope, it should be positive changes in domestic and foreign affairs to have short and long term human benefits. His first priority was how he overcomes from deep global financial crises. A lot is expected from him.

    • @C. S. -

      "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few" stripes. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)