Barack Obama has tapped Eric Holder to be his attorney general. Holder is a Clintonite. He helped with the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005. Obama voted for it. As a lawyer with Covington & Burling, he defended Chiquita Brands International, Inc., (formerly United Fruit Company) executives financing right-wing death squads in Colombia named the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). What Holder did was act as the mob's mouthpiece. The AUC has been a thoroughly reprehensible and illegal, criminal organization responsible for numerous heinous human rights violations.

Obama is also apparently planning to keep FBI Director Robert Mueller on the job. Mueller did try to stand up to Alberto Gonzales on occasion, but that doesn't excuse FBI excesses under Mueller. There were plenty of those. National Security Letters (NSLs) were used to intimidate people all over the country. Thank God, literally, for the numerous public librarians and others who did so much to face down the FBI and their ridiculously unconstitutional NSLs. "Come back with a real warrant" was heard all over the U.S. and rightly so. The NSLs were far from the only infractions of the FBI.

Obama is furthermore also apparently planning to keep Robert Gates on as the Secretary of Defense. Gates was involved in the Iran-Contra Scandal under Ronald Reagan. He is a close insider with George H. W. Bush and all his connection with oil for Empire. The Pentagon is wholly evil, but who heads it up has a great deal to do with how that evil is dished out. Bob Gates has said some really dumb things about Russia and the Georgia-South Ossetia Conflict. He has too much neocon in him even though as a James Baker comrade, he's not a rabid political Zionist like Joe Biden.

Also, Obama is using John Brennan to transition into the CIA. Brennan worked with George Tenet when all the torture, extraordinary renditions, black sites, and the rest were being ramped up. Those were all violations of international law and utterly immoral. Why then is Obama using him?

Obama has also sent out signals that he has no intention of bringing U.S. war criminals to face mundane justice. (See: "Obama's attorney general pick and the illusion of change," by Bill Van Auken. World Socialist Web Site. November 20, 2008.)

Barack Obama is just business as usual. He's going to simply be a different face, a different front man, for the same criminal enterprise that is the global kleptocracy, the global plutocracy. He's taking orders from the superrich cabal of bankers running the world by controlling all the world's currency flows and issuances.

The only secular way to break free is to break the banker's control on the currencies. The best way to do that in the U.S. is via United States Notes completely replacing Federal Reserve Notes and by canceling the national debt to the Federal Reserve System and all interest due on that debt. The whole system needs to be declared what it has always been and that's unconstitutional. That declaration needs to be made by the people via repealing the Federal Reserve Act.


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 United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.