In its survey, Rasmussen Reports misrepresents the Fairness Doctrine. It says the doctrine required "all radio and television stations to offer balanced political commentary." It did not. It's a lie. The Fairness Doctrine required equal time for opposing views. If no one came forward requesting such equal time under the broadcasting license, no such opposing view was required to be given. We are talking here about editorial views and not hard news, even though such hard news is often, even usually, blurred with propaganda by the mainstream media.
The broadcasting media are considered common properties of the citizenry. That's why its pieces are licensed off. The rich can afford the licenses. The rich originally became rich by taking via violence. Empires and large multinational corporations are still sustained in this way often through proxies — bribed and threatened local governments.
A proper democracy, it is assumed, requires an informed citizenry. If the citizens hear only what the rich serve up, the citizens are not informed of other possible choices. When they are informed only by the rich, when the broadcasting media are dominated by the rich, people who are not rich can't be heard. They don't hear each other through the people's licensed media.
The Internet offers a more level field, but it is not level. The rich control the networks. The rich dominate the major methods by which people attempt to find out opposing views. Even now, the rich want to further restrict the people's ability to find out opposing views because opposing views cut into the monopoly of the rich and cause the wealth to be shared without reducing the over all wealth — contrary to the lies of the superrich and their well-paid, sellout minions and dupes.
The top capitalist are not democrats. They are not for democracy. They are against democracy. They are also opposed to un-coerced consensus. I'm for un-coerced consensus. That's why they hate me.
The plutocrats do not want the Fairness Doctrine. You shall know them by their fruit. The super rich brought you the Crash of 2008, the foreclosures, the bank bailouts, the increased National Debt, more taxes going to pay the rich interest on that debt, the wars, the terrorist attacks in the form of the 9-11 and 7-7 and other False-Flag Operations.
Whom do you trust? Do you trust the Plutocrat bankers? I do not. Jesus doesn't trust them either anymore than he trusted the moneychangers in the temple.
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)