Open reply: Morgan Freeman, $1M/Priorities USA Action

Per my nephew:

Pres. Obama has done a remarkable job in historically difficult circumstances. He ended combat operations in Iraq, put in place sensible reforms of Wall Street, saved the auto industry and protected the health care of every American. He has led our nation to be more tolerant and placed impressive, accomplished women on the Supreme Court. In return, he is the target of hundreds of millions of dollars from right-wing sources. I am proud to lend my voice - and support - to those who defend him. Priorities USA Action is doing a great job of protecting the values I believe in. I am happy to help them and I hope others will join me. (Morgan Freeman after writing a $1,000,000 check)

"ended combat operations in Iraq" and in Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere (clandestine and otherwise)? How about stating that under no circumstances will the US attack Iran without hard proof that Iran is doing what his administration claimed for so long (that they do have a nuclear-weapons program) until the administration was force by alternative media (through no small effort on my own part) to admit that they have no proof of that and now rather say "may have"? Is his Predator Drone program some great thing? He summarily executes people on his "list." How many wedding parties has he authorized be blown apart? How many women and children and old folks and other innocents has he killed as collateral damage? And what about the illegal siege of Gaza while the Zionists take more and more and more land out from under Palestinian Arabs – second-class citizens in Israel?

"sensible reforms of Wall Street"? What's been sensible about not bringing prosecutions of clear fraud? He prosecutes plenty of others for much lesser crimes. Where's the fundamental fairness? Where's the equal application of the law? It's not there, that's where. Do you see the Federal Reserve protecting the people or the major banks? Ben Bernanke bailed out the banks. He lent them funds at near zero and then let them earn higher interest by parking the borrowed money at the Fed rather than lending it out to Main Street. How many children were put out of their homes while Obama allowed the bankers (banksters) to not only continue but to make even larger bonuses? Obama doesn't take any of them to task.

What was sensible about not prosecuting the CIA-torture crew? He allowed the John Yoo memos to actually work even though waterboarding was and remains a war crime.

What was sensible about not prosecuting the dragnet illegal surveillance of American citizens speaking privately to their fellow Americans while both were in America? The NSA has had a field day creating what has properly been described as a turnkey police-state.

There are still people rotting in GITMO who should never have been there. He promised to get them out of there. That's not the only prison that remains. None of the higher-ups responsible for Abu Ghraib were ever held to account either. Obama simply turned away.

What about his administration going after WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for helping to leak the war crimes in Iraq? They blew civilians apart who simply stopped to render aid to other civilians shot by the US military when that military clearly did not take the necessary steps to be sure the people on the ground were involved in fighting. Besides, the invasion of Iraq was illegal under International Law in the first place -- based upon a pack of obvious lies. Barack Obama didn't touch it.

"protected the health care of every American" That's clearly not referring to the over ten million Americans who will still not have insurance coverage under Obamacare while Obama refused to even allow Single-Payer to be part of the debate at a time when some 60% of voting adults actually wanted it. Do you remember the "Public Option"? He caved even on that without the slightest effort to change hearts and minds about it.

"more tolerant"? Is he tolerating more of what is good and less of what's bad or...? I think he's given greater voice to many who are extremely intolerant -- fascist, in fact -- people who want certain religious types to go into the closet even where those people are not being fascistic at all in return.

I only touched the tip of the iceberg with all of this.

Donate


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.