Le Pen is a nationalist ecologist/environmentalist, though she apparently supports nuclear energy. Her view is that unbridled globalization has wrought significant environmental damage that would not otherwise have occurred. She's right about that, of course. How different she is from Trump!I'm not a nationalist but do appreciate legitimate concerns about completely open borders whereby the criminally violent insane are simply free to move about at-will. In my town, a gang war started. Reportedly, the gangs solely consist of Mexican nationals law-enforcement says are "illegal aliens." It's not a joke. They've been killing each other here over graffiti wars. There have been innocent people caught up in the violence and hurt.
Do they have any business here? Should they have been allowed in? Should they be captured and deported to Mexican law-enforcement to deal with, to keep from attempting to re-cross the Mexican-US border?
Perhaps they should be held here and rehabilitated, or habilitated for the first time if they never have been. However, we aren't doing very well with our own homegrown gangs.
Furthermore, Le Pen is not anti-Semitic (anti-Jew in this context). She just visited a memorial for Jews taken by the Nazi Gestapo. She laid a wreath there. Neocons and hyper-Zionists have been doing their best to make out that she's a racist and ethnic bigot. I don't believe them. She was totally right that the France of WWII was occupied territory and that the real government of France was in London during the war and was not responsible for rounding up Jews. Nazi collaborators who were not the legitimate government but a Nazi installed/backed government did. The French People as a whole should not be even asked to bare collective guilt for that or even asked to apologize for it as a nation. They can certainly say they are sorry that some French people caved into the Nazis to the extent they did but would still be proper to remember the extreme duress the Nazis brought with them. After all and as I've pointed out elsewhere, there were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis too, both inside and outside the concentration camps. Do we ask all Jews to apologize in the sense the Jewish nation was collectively guilty? We do not, nor should we. So to those Jews who look to everyone else's "guilt," shame on you!
She also opposes the death penalty.
Lastly, her economic plan has been termed "socialist" by the National Review in the US. It's not quite that, but it is decidedly left of the so-called "center" of her rival for the Presidency, Macron, whom Melenchon (a real socialist) calls "the extreme of finance," hardly the center but economically far-right relative to Le Pen. Again, how different she is from Trump!
So, should you be for Macron? I'm not.
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)