Hogwash: "Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United - Big Government"

This is hogwash: » Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United - Big Government.

The rich have their think-tank minions commenting on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission saying that Citizens United also benefits the non-rich who may also buy ads. However, the rich control much media and are out to kill Net Neutrality too.

Exactly how, other than word of mouth and pure common sense do the poorer people get a say in how things are run and what ideas are placed before the people as a whole?

If they kill Net Neutrality, even that arena or forum will be completely "privatized" such that the super-rich, the Plutocrats, the Banksters and their corporate fellow travelers, will control its content against the truth: against fairness and justice that are one and the same.

Just look at what the Koch Brothers are doing now: "Big Brothers: Thought Control at Koch"

Now, that's Big Business, which the "Big Government" site doesn't ever seem to be worried about, even though Koch Industries is a major polluter and is in essence raping and destroying the planet and people.

Some people defend greed. Others tell the children not to be greedy pigs. Some children understand the message and reason for it. They grow up not polluting and raping the planet and people. Other's though are too stupid to receive the absolute objective truth that polluting and raping are never good for the planet or people in whole or in part.

Those stupid ones grow up to be Charles and David Koch and Andrew Breitbart (of the moronically pro-Koch Brothers "Big Government" site).

Andrew Breitbart is the sociopaths' apologist — meaning excuser. His life's calling is spreading totally toxic dung that the Koch Brothers' Big Business, Big Corportocracy, Kleptocracy, Plutocracy, is great for everyone, even though, again, it's polluting and raping the planet and people.

The laissez-faire liars will tell you they don't support the Federal Reserve Banksters. What they won't tell you is that they simply want to takeover the Banksters slave-business. It's gangster rivalry for territory, or I should say, terrortory.

You would be even worse off under the Kochs than the Ben Bernankes of this world. Ben at least as some understanding, like Henry Ford, that the workers must be able to afford the Model-T's. The Kochs really don't care, as they'll be long dead by the time their evil on Earth in this iteration of their existence catches up with their Big Business.

What they don't understand is that there is no eternal escape from reaping what they are sowing. They do owe the devil, and the devil will collect. That's spiritual.

Some people get it and do the right things accordingly, also just because they are the right things to do. The reward comes as an aftereffect.

This Koch activity hasn't been tested in court yet. If they fire people for refusing political indoctrination on the job, it will be tested.

I'm suggesting that the Kochs will lose that fight in court even including if it reaches this current Robert's Supreme Court, which if the lower court's reasoning is tight enough, it won't.

I can tell you that I would definitely refuse to receive any politicking on the job by any employer if I were not granted equal liberty on the job to denounce the particular political views of that employer.

If I were working at a Koch-owned enterprise, having been grandfathered in, I can assure you I'd be telling them I'm not attending any political meetings, I'm not going to listen to any supervisors telling me what to think politically, and I'm not going to receive or read any political tracts, etc., from the Kochs or their corporate minions, dupes, and sycophants.

How could they then not fire me or discriminate against me on account of my political beliefs? I'd have a legal case against them, and in my earlier years, would file suit and win. I am not now though litigious, but younger men fight back more readily for a number of reasons I won't defend. It's just how it is right now with this generation.

Praise God.


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.