World Citizenship: Is it inherently evil?

"World Citizen" sends shivers up and down the spines of many Ron Paul followers and others. Many fear the NWO will be headed up by people bent upon stripping everyone of what little civil liberties there are. However, there has to be a New World Order. We certainly can't go on the way it is or return to how it was. It was never good enough.

The question is what's in our hearts rather than whether or not we have supranationalism. The question is good government versus what we are experiencing nearly everywhere in the world on the nation-state level anyway.

Changing minds and hearts is the challenge, and it's very hard to get each other to work on understanding terms to overcome so many obstacles. I know I'm routinely misunderstood on account of terminology and semantics. People jump to conclusions that I want to force people, even use violence. It's not true.

Right now, there is hardly any government on any level that isn't based upon the threat of violent and other coercive means rather than upon coming to consensus via the peaceful work of discussion and persuasion. So many are cut off before being heard out. Most of us (humans) give up too soon. How many refuse to concede validity simply because it does not comport with our mental constructs? How many are instantly pouncing on others to put them on the sound-bite defensive no matter that those leveling the charges live in houses of cards themselves and do not seek to reach final conclusions via thorough examination but rather, as with George W. Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, they seek to avoid the tough questions, such as waterboarding as torture, simply by not asking? That was his actual legal opinion — imagine —, and he actually had a great deal of support on that.

There are pockets of relatively decent governing. What we need is the best of the best and then to improve on that and have it be universal without stifling further improvements. Every time anyone starts talking that way though, then sociopaths clamped down via whatever means it ends up taking to silence that one.

The sociopaths are the most difficult to penetrate. Their compassion zones are so severely damaged. Healing them of that will be difficult since they have wrongly seized wealth, power, and control of so much and do not want to give it up.


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.