IRS Preamble: Obama forms “A More Perfect Union” between Church and State and Race

 

wethepeople

 

AUGUST 11th 2014
a “less Wright” union

From our perspective here on the other side of the fence, we seem to see things differently than most Americans. When gauging what’s been referred to by your former presidents, a “Rendezvous with Destiny” is found best by looking, not ahead, but back, instead. (For there is where the truth befell, and foretold tales foretell.)

When actually in his audience, we like to sit in the most forward row, so we can keep our eyes on his other hand… the one not meant for us to see, much less, to understand. It is because of thus and such, that we’ve come to expect him and his train, to display (just because they can), their mastered legerdemain, a magician’s art (also known as “sleight of hand”).

And because tickets to his shows have become so much pricier these days, we’re not afraid to just come out with it and say: Obama’s antithetical rhetoric actually is transparent; but what we’re referring to specifically is its deceptiveness, and how it borders on disdain.

There is, however, a “one-night-only” show tucked into his repertoire, which is probably more relevant than when it was performed. Yet, one would think it important for a candidate, at least, to be, respectful of the document granting him his sovereignty (especially on the day), and to proudly hoist the “red, white and blue” in prominent display.

Nearly eight months after that Constitution Day, the flag went up as planned, when he was elected to the highest office in the freest of all lands. But over Constitution Center on March 18th ’08, waved a flag which few of your people saw. (Most of the media, all prostitutes by then, lay in waiting for Obama’s answering of Mitt’s “congratulations” call.)

Of the few which did admit to it, only Huffington bore its soul. Better late than not at all, turns out; or we might have never known, that the flag which flew that day (blood red!) meant (as all the sailors said), a warning of bad weather and that danger lay ahead.

independence-hall3Picture it when you watch and read along with what he says. Certainly you may discount him, a candidate, for vacated promises; but don’t dismiss what hides within; almost every bit opposed to what his careful writers wrote (both what to miss and what to know).

We tried to find a simple way to demonstrate our woes, especially for those who would bother with neither text nor videos. What we came up with is the following (frequency of word occurrence is what we chose). We picked five words (roots and proper nouns), counting each one in the speech, then added up all those:

Race – 33
Reverend – 15

Wright – 14

It seemed odd to us he never once said “Preamble,” the name of his title’s source, or that, on Constitution Day (of all), he used “Constitution” in a sentence – but just once – enough to mention DNA, which he “inherited” from America’s “first slave,” one alleged to be named “John Punch.”

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

Most in polite society know well not to say, “Don’t think of elephants” to someone who wants them to go away; especially when there’s already one which seems it’s there to stay. If “Obama’s Race Speech” was truly intended to denounce racism and promote remembrance of our Constitution, then he is sorely lacking in at least one important social institution, because the elephant is bigger now (the elephant being “racism”), and your Constitution seems to be headed for a fate worse than its own disgrace.

But this article isn’t just about the rise of race or a fall from grace (au contraire, nos amis). It’s about his use of hypocrisy and deceptive statements, intended to disguise the beginning of the end of your First (and more) Amendment.

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.

The truth is sadder than most people realize. The press has not enjoyed real freedom of exercise, at least not since when, as we have shown, in March 2008, and some of the non-profits can’t speak freely, fearing political debate, and to exercise all freedoms in religion only applies, if a religion views all faiths as something only to despise.

The Obama administration is currently pushing to tighten reins in the IRC. There has even been discussion that the federal government may begin monitoring and censoring the content promulgated during religious services.

But we’re not publishing this article to discuss the merits of the federal government implanting federal agents in every church, mosque, synagogue and cemetery in the country. We’re here only to reveal the hypocrisy, disrespect and contempt Obama holds for Americans, if not for America itself.

Watch the brief segment of his 2008 address below, and then ask yourself who your President really is. In our opinion, he’s either the antithesis of the person he attempts to present, or he suffers from some form of psychological disorder (multiple personality, pathological narcissism, or the like), either of which are reason enough to question his ability, pursuant to the 25th Amendment, to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Extracted from the clip:

We’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this firestorm weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.

So our question is this: “Is Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ an IRC 501 organization, or not?” We think it should be, just as we believe every religious leader should be permitted to exercise his right to freedom of expression and benefit from tax breaks as charitable organizations. They are certainly the last group of Americans which should be muzzled.

Your members of Congress must repeal the speech-restricting requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, and they must do it now, before the President again misuses his pen, or the People unite and put him, instead, in one.

 

Video ®2008 barackobama.com

Is America meant to presume from Obama’s admissions that Rev. Wright’s church is somehow exempted from the IRC regulations or that it chooses not to take advantage of tax exempt, nonprofit status? (Remember, President Obama admitted in his address to having himself heard some of the Reverend’s more divisively racial and, yes, politically partisan remarks while seated in the pews of his church.)

There’s a lesson to be learned in here somewhere. Perhaps it’s that the Separation of Church and State principle is open to interpretation, with a prevailing perspective that it is like a one way street – leading only outward from Washington, D.C. The government is required to support and enforce that division; individual religions and churches are not.

The plot thickens for those religious institutions filing for nonprofit status under the same IRC 501(a) exemption as other churches; largely with the same requirements not to support any political candidates, preach politics of any candidate or group of candidates in the church, actively encourage specific influence over legislation or attempt, in any way, to influence an individual’s political opinion.

Importantly, however, nothing in the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the preaching of opinion based on a faith or belief. So feel free to do as America’s earliest legislators did… preach opinion in the church and allow Rectors to build their sermons judiciously around the controversies of the day. Just remember to exercise care not to credit any candidates or political parties with the concepts.

These days, since there are those, who would claim that just about everything is “political,” it doesn’t mean it’s true that a religion can’t share the same philosophies or talk about them. Moreover, except the recorded words of God, the Holy Spirit and His Son, no thought is original, and that includes sermons encouraging a form of racism, against, for example, members of radicalized Islam. (If that were the case, no religion would be permitted to discuss the fact that the three wise men were of differing ancestry or that each had a different “gift.”)



The root word “race” in Obama’s context, wasn’t commonplace in America until the 1930s, when it peaked in Europe during Hitler’s Third Reich many decades following Europe’s “Social Darwinism Movement,” which began in 1859.

 




Add Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s