Tom Usher wrote or added | "5. Mountaintop coal mining is good for real estate values
'I think whoever owns the property can do with the property as they wish, and if the coal company buys it from a private property owner and they want to do it, fine. The other thing is that I think coal gets a bad name, because apparently a lot of the land is desirable once it gets flattened out... I don't think anyone's going to be missing a hill or two here and there. Some people like the flat land, and some of it apparently has become rather valuable when it's become flattened.'
The article missed not closing Guantanamo and also declaring war on Afghanistan. That latter one though might just mean he thinks that it's an illegal, undeclared war.
Where does he stand on offshore oil-wells now that there's been an underwater gusher for over a month? He's a doctor (albeit an eye doctor). He has to know something about chemicals and cancer. There's going to be a great deal of disease in the Gulf of Mexico from all the oil and the toxic dispersants. Is he just laissez-faire about all the lax cement work that's gone on all over the place with all these underwater wells, or is he for retroactive regulation that would shut all of them down? If he's not for shutting them down permanently, is he for shutting them down until they pass rigorous inspections by independent government inspectors who cannot be in any revolving-door process with the industry?
As for the Mountaintop removal comment, he's insane. It's hundreds of mountains, Rand, many hundreds of mountains, not "a hill or two here and there." How demonic is that characterization of mountaintop removal? He's so blasÃ© about all the other negative aspects of MTR. Gee, read even the Wikipedia on all the problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal#Environmental_and_health_impacts You'll notice that, as of the time of this post, there's an idiotic counter to the laundry list of problems which idiotic counter is exactly Rand Paul's lame point. It reminds me of the Zionists claiming they're great humanitarians toward the Gazans. Some people....
I wish people would just come to their senses and be for the environment rather then for selfishness.
Betty Molchany: Tom, I had been hoping he would win because I liked and supported his father - until one week before the presidential election when I began to think McCain and Palin might be elected, which is no way to decide how to vote. Despite Ron Paul's conservative stand on so many issues, many progressives, like myself, supported him.
Rand Paul may not be like his father out of expedience or he may really be to the right of his father.
I believe he is more the neocon than is his father. I don't support either of them because I can't support laissez-faire capitalism at all. I don't curse either of them though, or anyone else for that matter. I hope each of them is blessed and becomes a true blessing for humanity and the planet.
The anti-war stand of Ron Paul is certainly an attractive aspect for real liberals, but unbridled capitalism is a curse.
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)