Here's what I added:
If you want a payroll-tax-and-unemployment-benefit extension, you have to agree to polluting, global warming, and caving into greedy, Big Oil, etc. That's what the Republicans want you to believe.
I should think that the poor and unemployed would rather you stand your ground and call the Republicans' bluff right out in the open.
Aren't you tired of being weak? Aren't you tired of tens of millions of Americans believing, with good cause, that the Democratic Party is really corporatist?
What would FDR do being able to see everything that the slightest compromise has wrought?
I would hope he would take it to the American people telling them like it is and saying that the Republicans want to hold the poor and unemployed hostage to global warming, various forms of pollution, and the greed of the polluters but that he isn't going to cave but rather redouble for the decent people -- yes, decent.
I don't care if anyone knows it. John Boehner's proposal is indecent. He is shamelessly shilling for Big Oil and many other proven-bad enterprises.
Don't compromise. Compromising will prolong the agony for the people. The people are near the edge. If the Republicans continue pushing them toward it, they will drop them. If you refuse to compromise and Barack Obama's payroll-tax-and-unemployment-benefit extension fails as a result, the pipeline will fail (if you are consistent) and then the people will be all the more upset at the Republicans for taking food out of the mouths of the poorest of the poor who lost their livelihoods at the hands of those same Republicans (unfortunately with much Democratic help).
FDR would call the banksters "banksters." He was wildly more popular than Barack Obama.
Times have been tough now since the end of 2007. Barack Obama had an FDR situation he could have used as FDR used his, only more so. He failed, miserably. That's left all of you tinkering around with the likes of John Boehner when we could have had a New New Deal plus, which is what was needed at the very least. The people were in the right place.
They are getting back there via Occupy and other efforts. Stand up now, and don't sit down again until America is fixed.
Stop working angles with the Canadians. They have to get off oil too.
Lead or get out of the way!
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)