Tom Usher's Statement Submitted to the US State Department Calling For the Rejection of the Dirty Tar Sand's Keystone XL Pipeline Project

At the request of some people on Facebook, I visited the following Internet page: "Tell the State Department: Reject the Keystone XL Pipeline."

The following is my "Statement Submitted to the US State Department Calling For the Rejection of the Dirty Tar Sand's 'Keystone XL Pipeline' Project," which I submitted via that page:

Rather than do anything to further the tar-sands industry, the US State Department and the President of the United States should be doing everything to promote clean, safe alternatives, such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, conservation, and the like.

Neither the President nor the State Department should be promoting or facilitating oil, coal, gas, or nuclear.

We need a crash program to get completely off oil, coal, gas, and nuclear.

I am 100% opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline program. It is completely unnecessary. It doesn't add to our safety or security, including in energy independence. It appears to be designed with one thing in mind: dirty profit for mega-polluters at the direct expense of everyone and everything else.

We are facing anthropogenic global warming that if left unaddressed in a major way, will cause huge disasters that will be beyond the ability of the most sophisticated computers to accurately model and predict in time to avert catastrophic death and destruction (of selfish humanity's short-sighted making).

Who's idea was it to build a pipeline to export Canadian oil from the US gulf coast? Why hasn't the Barack Obama administration stood squarely against that plan? If we are not energy independent concerning oil, why in the world would we export it other than that a few are going to benefit at the expense of the general American citizenry?

Really, this makes the State Department, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the President look either dimwitted or corrupt or both. If you do not want to appear as such, then reject the Keystone XL Pipeline for all of the right reasons and state them openly and honestly when you announce your rejection.

I don't know what backroom deals have been made, but conscience should get the better of every public official in the US and such deals should be canceled.

As stated by others, "This pipeline [as part of the carbon-based energy sector] moves our nation in the wrong direction."

Reject the Keystone XL pipeline. Do the right thing. Stand up to the major corporations and unenlightened, selfish interests promoting tar sands, the Keystone XL pipeline, oil in general, gas (fracking, etc,), coal (mountaintop removal), and nuclear (Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl...).

I mention those other industries and tar sands in general because your decision concerning this pipeline should not be allowed to be made in a vacuum. We need a national and global energy policy that is based solely upon clean, safe, sustainable sources and all associated enterprises (and the more public and transparent those are, the better).


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.