That the purpose is to show the people that there is a higher set of laws than our Constitution and Bill of Rights, therefore rendering them (our Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws) useless and without meaning.

America, you better wake up or you can start now calling each other comrade. Read this and ask yourself if this is not evidence.

Tuesday November 7, 2000; 9:37 AM ET

Jesse Jackson Jr. Says Church Politicking 'Supercedes the Law'

It may be against federal election law to campaign in church. But for Democrats seeking to get out the vote in minority districts, politicking from the pulpit has become indispensable.

In the last days of this year's campaign, Vice President Al Gore, Senate candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband have made regular appearances at African-American and Hispanic churches.

Even when parishioners objected to Mrs. Clinton campaigning from the altar at a Rochester, New York Catholic church last week, the rules were not enforced. Those who didn't like it were simply ejected by police while the first lady continued her campaign speech.

Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., whose namesake is both a reverend and one of the Democratic Party's most vocal boosters, was challenged on the issue Monday during a Tennessee radio interview on WLAC-AM by "Nashville This Morning" hosts Steve Gill and Terry Hopkins.

GILL: Let me ask you about this. It's against IRS regulations for politicians to campaign from the pulpit. Why are these politicians campaigning in black churches?

JACKSON: I'm not totally convinced that's true in the African-American community. Certainly there's a separation of church and state. But in our community there's little distinction between our religion and our politics.... And so in many African-American churches born out of experience in this country, the role of the churches has evolved into a very, very active political institution which has been very effective for a number of causes in the black community.

HOPKINS: And that supercedes the law?

JACKSON: Absolutely. Oh, absolutely.

-- UR2Blame (UR2Blame@UPOWER.COM), November 07, 2000

Answers

And exactly what law might it be that prohibits campaigning in churches? Why do people believe this kind of stuff just because they see it in print?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@about.it), November 07, 2000.

EH...

The above article is taken from the direct statements of the IRS given as the official reasons, on Dept. of Treasury/IRS Form 886-A, dated 4/4/2000, for revoking the exempt status of The Church at Pierce Creek, in Vestal N.Y., for "political activity". They took out full page newspaper ads a few years past to warn America not to vote for Clinton because of his position of homosexuality, abortion, and other things. They were very vocal opponents of the NWO in their community, and dared to expose the facts of record and law which spin doctors and the brainwashed refer to as "conspiracy theories", documenting the real time overthrow of the U.S.

The sleight of hand involved in promulgation of such "rules" is somewhat convoluted, but may be traced to Sec. 7805 Rules and Regulations (a) Authorization, where the "Secretary" (Governor, IMF), is authorized to "prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title". Again, it is no secret that the IRS has a history second only to the CIA for using their power to terrorize their political enemies. The IRS views its own rules, regulations, and policies as "law", and the co-opted "courts" generally rule in their favor, if those declared guilty until proven innocent seek due process protections against the full faith and credit of the IMF. 7805(e)"authorizes" "temporary regulations", which the IRS is not obligated to apply uniformly in like cases. The IRS also takes it upon itself, (see: IRS pub.334, etc.) to "interpret" court decisions in its own best interest. "A law unto itself", is the best capsule. Domestic terrorism is a more apt description.

Only natural persons can posess the the natural, inherent rights that God grants. The "rights" of a corporate person or entity are merely a government grant of limited privilege.

Revenue Ruling 71-447 is the formalization of IRS policy first announced in 1970 that a 501(c)(3) must not only fall within its categorical defintions, but "..that its activity is not contrary to settled public policy." "Public policy" did you get that? The Churches, by this "licensure" are diminished to the status of "charitable corporations" or "quasi- public corporations" (See: 397 US 664), subject to current interpretation of "public policy". Given the lengthy definition of "public policy", (which, in short, is whatever Klinton wants it to be, can you say Executive Order, neighbor?), the following will serve as well:

Public purpose. The term is synonomous with governmental purpose. ) Op. Cit., Black's 6th

"Governmental purpose." Is this starting to focus yet? Who is running America? IRS rulings clearly impact public policy, as do the policies of the entire bureaucratic unelected and unaccountable "fourth branch". The courts are ever the great social engineers, discarding the Law for interpretive "community common conscience". What "conscience"? Surely we are all familiar with the terms "overridng governmental interest" (sic. "purpose/policy"), and "compelling state interest".

IRC section 501(c)(3)(excerpt) stipulation: "...no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation...and which does not participate in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." "Substantial" is not defined in the implementing regulations promulgated by the Secretary, leaving broad powers of "discretionary" enforcement upon the chosen enemies of the state.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 07, 2000.

Also...

From "TIME", March 16, 1942

_________________________________________________________________

American Malvern These are the high spots of organized US Protestantism's super-protestant new program for a just and durabel peace after World War II:

***Ultimately, "a world government of delegated powers."

***Complete abandonment of US isolationism.

***Strong immediate limitations on national soveriegnty.

***International control of all armies & navies.

***"A universal system of money...so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation."

***Worldwide freedom of immigration.

***Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.

***"Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples" (with much better treatment for Negroes in the US).

***No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations."

***A "democratically controlled" international bank "to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large- scale private and governmental loans."

This program was adopted last weeki by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestand church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. "As Christian citizens," its sponsors affirmed, "we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realitites and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living."

Among the 375 delegates who drafted the program were 15 bishops of five denominations, seven seminary heads "including Yale, Chicago, Princeton, Colgate-Rochester), eight college and university presidents (including Princeton's Harold W. Dodds), practically all the ranking officials of the Federal COuncil and a group of well- known laymen, including John R. Mott, Irving Fisher and Harvey S. Firestone Jr. "Intellectually," said Methodist Bishop Ivan Lee Holt of Texas, "this is the most distinguished American church gathering I have seen in 30 years of conference-going."

The meeting showed its temper early by passing a set of 13 "requisite principles for peace" submitted by Chairman John Foster Dulles and his inter-church Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and DUrable Peace. These principles, far from putting all the onus on Germany or Japan, bade the US give thought to the shortsighted selfishness of its own policies after World War I, declared that the US would have to turn over a new leaf if the world is to enjoy lasting peace.

Excerpts:

***"For at least a generation we have held preponderant economic power in the world, and with it the capacity to influence decisively the shaping of world events. It should be a matter of shame and humiliation to us that actually the influences shaping the world have largely been irresponsible forces. Our own positive influence has been imparied because of concentration on selfr and on our short- range material gains....If the future is to be other than a repetition of the past, the US must accept the responsibility for constructive action commensurate with its power and opportunity."

***"The natural wealth of the world is not evenly distributed. Accordingly the possession of such natural resources...is a trust to be discharged in the general interest. This calls for more than an offer to sell to all on equal terms. Such an offer may be a futile gesture unless those in need can, through the selling of their own goods and services, acquire the means of buying."

With these principles accepted, the conference split up into four groups to study, respectively, teh social, economic and political problems of the post-war world and the problem of the church's own position in that world.*

FOOTNOTE HERE: (Despite their zeal for world policial, social and economic unity, the churchmen were less drastic when it came to themselves. They were frank enough to admit that their own lack of unity was no shining example to the secular world, but did no more than call for "a new era of interdenominational cooperation in which the claims fo cooperative effort should be placed, so far as possible, before denominational prestige.")

Discussion waxed hot & heavy, with one notable silence: in a week when the Japs were taking Java, discussion of the war itself was practically taboo. Reason: The Federal COuncil felt that, since five of its other commissions are directly connected with the war efort, the conference's concern should be iwth plans for peace. One war statement--"the Christian CHurch as such is not at war"--was proposed by Editor Charles Clayton Morrison, of the influential and isolationist-before-Pearl-Harbor "Christian Century". This statement was actually inserted in a subcommittee report by a 64-58 vote after a sharp debate. In the plenary session, however, it was ruled out of order.

Some of the conference's economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that "a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative"-- a neww order that is sure to come either "through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution. WIthout condemning the profit motive as such, it denounced various defects in the profit system for breeding war, demagogues and dictators, "mass unemployment, widespread dispossession from homes and farms, destitution, lack of opportunity for youth and of security for old age." Instead, "the church msut demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare...must appeal to the Christian motive of human service aas paramount to personal gain or governmental coercion."

"Collectivism is coming, whether we like it or not," the delegates were told by no less a churchman than England's Dr. William Paton, co- secretary of the World Council of Churches, but the conference did not veer as far to the left as its definitely pinko British counterpart, the now famous Malvern Conference ("TIME", Jan 20, 1941). It did, however, back up Labor's demand for an increasing share in industrial management. It echoed Labor's shibboleth that the denial of collective bargaining "reduces labor to a commodity." It urged taxation designed "to the end that our wealth may be more equitably distributed." It urged experimentation with government and cooperative ownership.

"Every individual," the conference declared, "has the right to full- time educational opportunities...to economic security in retirement...to adequate health service [and an] obligation to work in some socially necessary service."

The conference statement on the political bases of a just and durable peace proclaimed that the first post-war dutyr of the church "will be the achievement of a just peace settlement with due regard to the welfare of all the nations, the vanquished, the overrun and the victors alike." In contrast to the blockade of Germany after World War I, it called for immediate provision of food and other essentials after the war for every country needing them. "We must get back," explained Methodist Bishop Francis J. McConnell, "to a stable material prosperity not only to strengthen men's bodies but to strengthen their souls."

Politically, the conference's most important assertion was that many duties now performed by local and national governments "can now be effectively carried out only by international authority." Individual nations, it declared, must give up their armed forces "except for preservation of domestic order" and allow the world to be policed by an international army & navy. This League-of-Nations-with-teeth would also have "the power of final judgment in controversies between nations...the regulation of international trade and population movements among nations."

The ultimate goal: "a duly constituted world government fo delegated powers: an international legislative body, and international court with adequate jurisdiction, international administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority."

.....Now, does anyone wish to tell me how these "churches" are teaching the Word of God?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 07, 2000.

Patrick:

As a start, define communism and define the "word of god"

Thanks,

DB

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), November 07, 2000.

Sure, DB...

.....ItBs a shame you donBt already know the difference but it is the advancement of the collective at the expense of the individual, for the short answer; it is the one-world movement thatBs coming into fruition as we type...

.....BThe WordB of God is Scripture; although, understand, I donBt mean the adulterated and bastardized version that is taught with the English language only in these whorehouses that pass themselves off as BchurchesB today... the is no light in them... one must delve into the languages in order to undo what the "scribes" have done down through the age, or they are just reading satan's fairy tales...

.....I don't have time to discuss Scripture deeply with those that don't believe, so don't let's be just pulling my chain here, (as a request)... I wanted to answer the question by E.H. Porter above...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradll.com), November 07, 2000.

The Word of God is Scripture

And you don't understand why anyone would ask you to give YOUR definition, Patrick? Sit back and think about it, friend. Your definition and opinions on it is one of many. Surely you are aware of this rather important piece of information.

Please understand, I'm neither baiting, looking for debate, nor hoping to convert you to another WAY.

Self-confidence is important but should not be so strong as to make one blind to the relevancy and legitimacy of the opinions and experiences of others.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 08, 2000.

It all depends on the meaning of the word is.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 08, 2000.

Sorry, hit the button too fast.

"little distinction between our religion and our politics" Is that because they view gov as a charity, a hand out to the black community? Jesse had his chance to run for prez; we all know the results.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 08, 2000.

Bingo...

.....I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... I believe that, "all wisdom comes from The Father"... the only place to gain this wisdom is from His living letter to us...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 08, 2000.

His living letter to us...

My main point is that there are many who believe they have received this Living Letter, which can only be opened with their particular brand of letter opener, read and interpreted using their special pair of reading glasses.

Although I allow for the possibility of such exclusiveness regarding God and His communications with humanity, I say the odds are quite small, hence my nudge that self-confidence may lead one put one's own eyes out so as not to see the possibilities of other legitimate scenarios. Compassion and communication then take a back seat to the building of walls.

I write these words not to denigrate you or your faith, Patrick. And I certainly do admire the obvious zeal with which you pursue a way to live which agrees with your heart, mind and soul.

Best - Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 08, 2000.

Whether a person believes the bible to be the living word of God or not, Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian doctrine.

So if you want to re-interpret law, you have to shut the churches up, or at least regulate what can be said. It's the place where people go and hear a message as a group on a regular basis.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 10, 2000.

Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian doctrine.

Very, very few of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian doctrine. That one is a fallacy.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 10, 2000.

Allow me to qualify my above comments, KoFe. I am not a Biblical scholar. It could be the hundreds of thousands of local, state and federal laws on the books ARE based upon the doctrine you cited. I'm guessing they are not because a large percentage of laws on the books either do not deal with morals or are so picayune that I cannot imagine why God would bother addressing them.

I would think at least a large handful of our laws are addressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, Old & New Testaments, and the Koran, among other scriptures.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 10, 2000.

Actually...

.....You're both wrong in a sense; our earlier laws are firmly rooted in English common law, which, in turn, was based upon Scriptural law... the term "judeo-Christian" is an oxymoron, at best and a perversion at worst... the two are anti-thetical to each other in reality and the melding of the two is a bastardization of both...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 10, 2000.

Patrick:

"which, in turn, was based upon Scriptural law." Which in turn was based on pagan law which preceded it. That's just how it is.

DB

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), November 10, 2000.

DB...

.....The original was not "pagan" but became so... The Scripture was then adulterated through the twisting of the language until what people read today has nothing in common with the manuscripts... as I said above... you cannot read "English only" or you won't gt it... That's just "churchiantiy" or what I call "deceived Christianity"...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 10, 2000.