Falling for the Climate-Gate conspiracy theory was more understandable than falling for Russia-Gate. Even Sandy Hook being a hoax is more understandable. Honestly, absolutely zero evidence has been supplied by the NSA or CIA or FBI or any other entity that Putin or any part of the Russian government conducted, ordered, condoned, or was even aware of any Russian election meddling or anything of the like. All any regular American citizen or world citizen has been asked to do is simply trust those parts of the NSA, CIA, and FBI that claim "Russia did it." Give me one reason to trust those who are claiming Russia did it, especially when those same agencies refused to include any dissenting statements from within their ranks? You do realize that "Russia did it" was, and remains, far from the consensus at those organizations, especially amongst the ranks that actually do the investigating, analyzing, and frontline conclusion-drawing, right?You don't see headlines in the MSM stating, "Proven professional-liars are alleging Russia meddled." You only see, "Russia meddled." You go with the liars. I'll wait for real evidence, which isn't there because Putin didn't do it. Real evidence would have surfaced ages ago.
So, you want to impeach and remove Donald Trump for allegedly obstructing a fishing expedition that's based upon innuendos, hearsay, dodgy (that's being charitable) dossiers, and wild speculations, all trumped up by the pack of liars the type of which brought us the disastrous Iraq War, wanted to "bomb, bomb, bomb" Iran over a nuclear-weapons program it never had, turned Libya into a failed state, and claimed Assad used chemical weapons (until Obama was finally forced to sheepishly admit the "evidence" was "not a slam dunk"), and on and on and on going back to the beginning of time?
Neocons know the exception makes the rule: "You can fool all of the people some of the time." "If at first you don't succeed," keep lying.
The problem with the Left is a lack of focus. The Left hasn't zeroed in on the root problem, which if solved, would take care of nearly all the rest. That root issue is democratizing all currency, money, legal tender, what is used to pay taxes.
The issue comes up over and over and over, but the Left's gatekeepers don't latch onto it, don't run with it out front. Is that because they don't understand it or because they aren't the ones who discovered the issue's centrality and aren't interested in allowing receiving credit for the Left's message to not go to them?
They keep the Left fractured, not understanding that monetary democratization would place before all else the purest form of fully informed, grassroots democracy attainable and do so such that all the cultural and social issues would then be automatically handled under that purest democratic form.
What the US needs is a Democratic-Money-Only Party. Everything else is more enslaved, places a needlessly heavier yoke on the People.
If the world will fully democratize the money in this way, humanity will run out of nearly all excuses. That would be a beautiful thing.
Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/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.
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)