Someone emailed me wanting to know what I think about Barack Obama's Prayer Breakfast speech of Thursday, February 2, 2012. She supplied a link to this article: "Obama uses prayer breakfast address to call for assistance for the poor."
What stands out most to me is Barack Obama's two-faced approach to Jesus. If you are going to follow Jesus, then do it. Don't pick and choose when and where.
First of all, the whole governmental structure is based upon the threat of and use of violent coercion and other forms of punishment for not falling into line including concerning things that are reprehensible, such as sodomite "marriages" and murdering innocent children via predator drones. The list of things forced by the Satanic government of the United States and all other coercive governments, many of which things a real Christian can never support even without the coercion, is seemingly endless.
His speech writer(s) andÂ Barack ObamaÂ rubbed their hands together at the prospect of "getting" Mitt Romney after Mitt's stupid statements about the poor in America (stupid even when taken in the full context of Romney's statements on it).
Obama used Jesus to get Romney. However, Jesus stands before God doing essentially the same thing that Jesus said Moses did concerning the so-called followers of Moses: showing the inconsistencies. Barack Obama is no follower of Jesus Christ. That fact stands out where no truly thinking person can miss it. Obama picks and chooses which bit of Jesus's teaching he, Obama, will misuse and abuse at any given time.
When it comes to taking care of the poor, Obama supports Monsanto. Monsanto has caused tens of thousands of small-farmer suicides in India alone. Where is the Jesus in Obama on that? He's missing.
When given the chance, Obama stood at the front of the church and explained how we Americans can't apply the Sermon on the Mount because it would mean the likely end of the Pentagon. This is sickening. When Obama turns around though and conjures Jesus half-heartedly (as if we only need be concerned during this "Great Recession") concerning the very poor in America, the Pentagon is conveniently left out of the discussion.
So, I tweeted the subject: https://twitter.com/#!/TomUsher/status/165288382119936001: "Barack Obama says he's his brother's keeper but lamented that the Pentagon wouldn't withstand the Sermon on the Mount."
I sent that link to the person who emailed me and asked: "And you?"
I received back: "I found it incredibly inspiring! I love connecting faith to a drive to do good in the world. :)"
His gross inconsistencies say it all. He's the world leader of inconsistency. Most of the world is stuck because of his type. He's running again for the position.
You find his words inspiring. That's compartmentalization.
He's not part of the solution. He has no part in Jesus. How can you not know that?
Is this what you wanted to hear from me, truth?
Now I must get on with "earning" the dreaded mammon because I'm stuck for a little while by the likes of Barack Obama and all the rest of the know-nothings.
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)