People should back up to the point where one considers how one arrives in Congress. What feelings, thoughts, words, and deeds possess a person such that he or she runs for a position, what with how that whole system is inherently flawed?
We should discuss this in hypothetical terms. If someone were handed the position (no running for it) and were he or she principled, an idealist, honorable, and sincere, that person could still stand on principle and lose the position were that system not radically transformed into what would be compatible with principle. All the people would have to stand up with that one.
Barring that radical transformation of the hearts of all the people, we are left with the truly principled, idealistic, honorable, and sincere one telling everyone that the Congress as it stands is itself an error.
Now, I come at it from a Christian perspective, but there is a meeting of the minds up to that point with those of purely voluntary, non-violent, consensus, council communism. This is regardless of spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs.
The self-styled libertarians cry foul though. They can't compete against that. Hence, with few exceptions, they are not only prepared to combine as the "state" to smash the "commies" and no matter the version, they advocate it.
Dennis Kucinich could have, and should have, stood his ground so that the message would be clear that simply holding out against him and ignoring him would not win the day, which it did. From here on out, he can't say he won't where anyone will believe simply waiting and ignoring him won't defeat him.
Let me finally say that just existing on this plane of existence is seen right now by most as a level of compromise at best. It is a paradox. Not to be reconciled to aiming at the highest and best and standing by that is an error. One is given to pick and choose where one engages. Dennis Kucinich has compromised way too early.
Contrary to what he's suggested, if he had stood his ground, he would not have been responsible for evil prevailing in the form of the privatizers regaining the Presidency. They never lost the Presidency. Barack Obama is way too much the early compromiser that the privatizers could be construed as having lost the office. The point here includes that privatization is anathema to that form of council communism I referenced above.
I wish these concepts were easier for the general population to follow. They aren't because the option of that council communism is deliberately avoided by those who have purchased everything via its (council communism's) direct opposite. They definitely don't want the general population pondering the pros of giving and sharing all, collectivism, cooperation versus cut-throat competition, consensus democracy in the workplace, and employee equal ownership, etc. They want everyone to believe that human nature precludes altruism; and, therefore, socialism has never worked, even though it has where it hasn't been smashed by the privatizers.
I'm not condemning Dennis to hell. I hope he'll see.
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)