All Eyes on Bernie Sanders

So, before I read what everybody else thinks, I want to dive right into what matters (not that some others won't be doing the same): Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders image

Bernie Sanders

Some people are in a state of shock that Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. I'm not one of them. When it looked more and more likely that Bernie Sanders wouldn't pull it out (due to his lack of foreign-policy chops, which he did start to develop during the campaign), I made it quite clear that it was doubtful Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump.

From the start, I had wanted Bernie to leave himself the out that if the Democratic Party abused what the system is supposed to be, he'd run third party. Obviously, he didn't do that. He didn't because he retained, and retains, hope that the Bernie Movement will still take over the Democratic Party.

Here's the deal. The leadership of the Democratic Party is now Bernie Sanders' to lose. The Senate (assume) minority leader will not be the real political leader of that party. If Bernie does everything right but that party still does not fall into line behind him, then he must exit for a third party, as the Democratic Party will have proven itself useless going forward.

Bernie Sanders, as the Democratic nominee, would have beaten Donald Trump and done so soundly. His coattails would have meant a great deal in down-ballot races as well. Sadly, the Democratic Party chose (sort of) Hillary Clinton and her machine instead.

She did not lose for being too progressive but rather for being too corporatist (among other things)! She did not lose due to Jill Stein either, not even close.

So, all eyes on Bernie Sanders. He must stand up and do so immediately as the chief critic of Donald Trump where the two do not agree. Where Donald Trump wants to do right things, Bernie should fully support him in his efforts, such as greatly reducing tensions with Russia hopefully to completely lift all sanctions and to make Russia a very close ally of the US, as should have, and could have, happened while Mikhail Gorbachev was still in power!

Let me close by stating that I do not agree with Bernie Sanders on all issues, far from it. For instance, he's way too fiscally conservative for me. He does not understand the potential of proper monetary and banking reforms. Taxes are not the way forward. As I've been writing for more years than I can remember, money financing of fiscal spending is (for starters).

Read this: Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States

Let the light in. Lift the bottom first. Leave absolutely nobody behind for any reason. Invest in what we need most in a prioritized manner. Make peace.


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 Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.