Corporations buy politicians via lobbying, donations, and fundraisers those corporations sponsor. The bankers on Wall Street who were bailed out, rather than allowed to go belly up the way Mom and Pop businesses do on Main Street because Mom and Pop aren't rich enough to pay politicians to bail them out with taxpayer funds, have given some $6 million to members on the Hill in Washington. Those same bailed out banksters have yet to make loans at decent terms (decent on the mundane level, but usury is strictly verboten on the divine level) to Mom and Pop or to refinance foreclosing homes that were often purchased under predatory-lending practices facilitated by Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve monetary policy of wildly cheap credit and no-doc and liar loans encouraged by lenders all the way up to the top of the major lending corporations. It's all been a scam, and the scheming continues right on because Barack Obama is also in the banksters' hip pocket.
The healthcare industry (pharmaceutical, healthcare, health insurance) has done exactly the same thing regarding the public option for healthcare reform. Some Democrats though are openly discussing using appropriation techniques so that they only need 50 votes to pass the public option. Those in the major healthcare corporations have targeted especially the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, who are just mostly Republicans calling themselves Democrats (at least in terms of Democrats who put people over big business monopolists). "The End of the Blue Dogs' Fundraising Boom?" By Josh Israel and Aaron Mehta. The Center for Public Integrity. PaperTrail Blog. August 20, 2009.
By the way, the public option is not all that great. Medicare for all isn't all that great. Medicare has to be heavily supplemented with private coverage to round out the coverage to anything comparable to some public healthcare in more advanced nations, such as France.
How do I feel about my fellow brothers and sisters in blood and spirit in terms of care? I don't see any reason why the fruits of my labors shouldn't go to helping see to it that every one of them has full dental and vision and hearing, etc., care and preventative help. I find much of the self-styled conservative Christian rhetoric from the likes of Pat Robertson and others utterly antichrist. Jesus would never agree with Pat Robertson. Jesus isn't for coercing people to care for each other, but he's every bit as much against people such as Pat Robertson masquerading as Christians while calling upon his followers to let others suffer because they made bad decisions by listening to crafty predators (such as Pat Robertson himself, who slickly gets millions of dupes to send him their hard-earned money so Pat can live with his tiny family in a huge mansion with servants waiting on them hand and foot). Folks, there is no blessing in sending Pat Robertson your money — none at all!
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)