The Biggest Republican Lie - The Daily Beast


"Only 35 percent of respondents thought Democrats were driven by concern for policy over politics in pushing health care through. But only 29 percent thought the GOP was acting in good faith in opposing it. The same poll showed that while only 32 percent approved of congressional Democrats' handling of health care, Republican numbers were even worse at 25 percent.
"...Surveys show that a majority of Republicans believe that Obama stole the election with Acorn's help...."

"Obama stole the election with Acorn's help"? They don't really believe that. They're just mad because they know that George W. Bush really did steal elections.    


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.
    • Thomas James

      Having to listen to Pat Roberstson everyday because my family members insist on watching him means I have to hear an endless rant about the evils of socialized medicine. Now I have probably mentioned this before but when people challenge me and say that there is no socialized medicine in the Bible people fail to realize that in ancient times the priests and the rabbis were for the most part the actual medical practitioners and they did not demand a flat payment for each medical service but rather depended on tithes which were mandatory and free will offerings.

      Under Pat Roberstson's system which he calls Christian each family who wanted insurance would have to pay a $1000 a month insurance premium or set up a medical savings account. However if you are poor and you cannot afford the premium that is just too bad and you need to find a job. However if you are rich you will be able to get a good deal. So what this means that under Pat Robertsons utopia a poor person who makes $1000 a month wouldspend 100 percent of his income on health insurance, an upper middle class person who makes $10,000 a month would pay 10 percent of his income and a rich millionare person would only have to pay 1 percent or even a tenth of one percent of his income on health insurance.

      If the Bible's Old Testament plan were applied to todays economy a poor person making $1000 a month would pay only a $100 premium. An upper middle class person making $10,000 a month would pay the $1000 premium and the super rich like Pat Robertson would have to pay $100,000 a month because he makes a million dollars a month. I can just see Pat Robertson complaining about how the bible rips him off because he would never receive $100,000 a month in services but rather the money would be used to subsidize some evil single mother on welfare.

      However this is the old testament system and is in fact very conservative because it is mandatory. Under the new testament a much more progressive system is proposed.

      However all of this will fall on deaf ears because the repubublicans insist that God does not want you to depend on the government for your health care needs. However ancient Israel indeed had a government that was a form of a theocracy which did provide health care.