Weak: Statement by the President After Meeting with BP Executives | The White House

Tom Usher wrote or added | "We've mutually agreed that Ken Feinberg will run the independent claims process we're putting in place. And [sic] there will be a three-person panel to adjudicate claims that are turned down. Every effort will be made to expedite these claims. Ken has long experience in such matters, including running the fund that compensated the victims of 9/11." This is Hell cometh. Ken Feinberg was a disaster. The legitimate complaints against how he sold the process were numerous. That's why Obama's team picked him, for his thick-skinned, thick-headed apologetics for the evil system.

"...until the Gulf Coast bounces back from this tragedy, as I know it will." Why in the world does he have writers (or did he ad-lib?) who are at-all focused on feel-good optimism at this stage in the oil leak? There are times and places for that; but throughout this ordeal so far, Obama has struck me as emotionally flat, even emotionally dead. Is that his impression of being "Presidential"? Where's the humanity? He mentioned Katrina and the current depression, he refuses to acknowledge is a masked-over depression, not a former recession; but he conveniently fails to connect how Katrina was made worse by governmental cuts and how the economic crash was deliberately caused by the people now surrounding him, who are doing the least they have to, to accomplish two things: keeping the people from revolting and keeping the superrich in place getting richer relatively to the rest.

Well, what ought one to expect from someone who says we won't hire lobbyists but turns around and floods the place with them and then turns around again and orders that his administration stop hiring them for board positions and such? It's worse than roulette. What ought one to expect from someone who in nearly all respects is simply a 3rd George W. Bush term? It's as if the planet is equating to intelligence Obama's relative flatness to George's more exaggerated glibness. It's not intelligence. It's lacking empathy, sympathy, compassion, and therefore urgency and bold, necessary action. His policies and practices on every issue are reflected in it.

He's hardly done a thing about prisoner abuse around the world in all the "secret" US controlled prisons holding thousands. His healthcare reform never once considered even beginning to examine the best healthcare systems in the world.

He wasn't elected by the privatization crowd (duped by the greediest of the greedy superrich), but he's let them gain the field again because Obama remained silent about the alternatives that were at one point supported by a sizable majority of Americans. He knew what he was doing on that. He knew he was marginalizing and diminishing and disenfranchising all those who were for single-payer who quite ignorantly voted for him.

Obama is the product of a combination of 1) people who believe that appealing to the "center" rather than moving the center (educating them) is better and 2) those who always fall for the line that the person running first as a lefty to gain the base and then who moves to the center to gain the center with them will come back to the left once elected. Well, he didn't come back. He's not moving either. He talks a great deal to momentarily placate. Then, memories fade, at least for some if not most so far.

It is a grave error to elect people who don't move the center to greater empathy, sympathy, compassion, and therefore urgency and bold, necessary action. It's not choosing wise shepherds but rather bought-off obfuscators who to scripted and stage-managed rather than real.

He's still surrounded by the banksters whose spirit caused the dark heart of the current system to manifest. It will bring only worse in the aggregate. That system has brought us the BP leak (hugely harmful pollution) and the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere (wanton destruction and death of even the wholly innocent). It is bringing all the saber rattling rather than peacemaking. It protects the Likudniks and other racist Zionists, until it's time for the superrich to throw even them to the wolves too for more special, private privileges and advantages for those superrich, mixed-economy capitalists. The tribes can't be unified until every member turns, repents, and seeks to atone.

When will they ever learn? When will the people ever stand up?

Laissez-faire is not the answer. "Let do" only works when all hearts are for each and all and not self apart. Coercive socialism is a Band-Aid on selfishness. We need unanimous communism and not of the Marxist variety but rather the Jesus variety, which is the only true way. Everyone else remains damaged goods.


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.