| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Jul 2004 09:39:20 PM |
| Object: |
21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
Falwell Confidential
Date: July 21, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell
BARRY LYNN IS TRYING TO SCARE CHURCHES ... AGAIN
The leftist organization Americans United for Separation of Church and
State (AU) has called for the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax
exempt status of my church and ministry because of the content of a recent
"Falwell Confidential" I wrote in which I suggested that President Bush was
the candidate of choice for conservative Christians.
Barry Lynn, the former American Civil Liberties Union operative, now heads
AU. You have heard me refer to AU as a "surrogate of the Democratic
National Committee" (DNC). My son, Jerry Jr., Liberty University's
vice-chancellor and general counsel, has suggested that Mr. Lynn rename his
organization Americans United for Separation of Conservative Churches and
State.
Mr. Lynn, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for the purpose of seeking
respectability in the media, likes to use the title "reverend," even though
I have been unable to find the name and location of any church he has ever
pastored, or the location and time where he ever delivered an actual sermon.
A couple of years ago while debating Mr. Lynn on a national TV talk show, I
accused him of being an attack dog for the DNC and asked him why he never
challenged Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and other
liberals for brazenly campaigning in African-American churches. As a
result, Mr. Lynn has since written some complaint letters to the IRS
regarding such situations for the express purpose, in my opinion, of leaving
an impression of impartiality.
FRIGHT LETTERS TO CHURCHES ARE COMING
About this time each election year, AU sends what I term a "fright letter"
to thousands of conservative evangelical pastors, telling them - quite
incorrectly - that any use of voter guides, political discourse or other
such activity could result in a loss of tax-exempt status for their
churches.
However, no such letter is sent to African-American churches or to liberal
main-line denominational churches. Traditionally, the Democratic candidates
speak in many African-American churches during their presidential campaigns.
Last Sunday, July 18, Sen. John Edwards spoke in the pulpit of the St. Mark
AME Church in Orlando. As reported in wire stories and on NBC Nightly News,
the pastor of the church strongly endorsed the Kerry-Edwards ticket. As
also shown on this same NBC broadcast, Sen. John Kerry, on April 4, spoke in
a large African-American church where the pastor introduced him as "the next
President of the United States."
Bill Clinton and Al Gore routinely conducted similar church-based
campaigning.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards will certainly follow this tradition right up to
election time. I have been documenting this "church activity on the left"
for many years. Neither AU nor the so-called "mainstream media" have
expressed any outrage over this seeming violation of IRS tax regulations.
This glaring and gross hypocrisy is obvious to all but those who are blinded
by their leftist biases.
WE HAVE VIOLATED NO LAWS OR REGULATIONS
By the way, this Falwell Confidential weekly newsletter is owned and
sponsored by the Liberty Alliance. The Liberty Alliance is a not-for-profit
educational and lobbying organization. It is an IRS recognized 501(c)(4)
corporation, chartered in Washington, D.C., that is allowed to lobby
Congress and influence legislation.
Our goal at Liberty Alliance is to promote traditional family values and
battle the liberals who would attempt to destroy the godly principles that
were at the foundation of this nation.
We still hold to the four main tenets of the original Moral Majority as it
was established in 1979. We are: 1) pro-family, 2) pro-life, 3) pro-defense
and, 4) pro-Israel. Gifts to The Liberty Alliance are, by law, not
tax-deductible.
Further, my web site, http://www.falwell.com, is also sponsored by The
Liberty Alliance. Neither my Thomas Road Baptist Church, Jerry Falwell
Ministries nor Liberty University have any affiliation with the Liberty
Alliance. As a publisher of a weekly newsletter (
http://www.nljonline.com ) and a monthly newspaper and a tax-paying citizen,
I may legally, under First Amendment protection, express my views and
opinions just like Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and "Rev." Lynn.
NO CHURCH HAS EVER LOST ITS TAX-EXEMPT STATUS
Every American pastor, as a tax-paying citizen, is free to express his views
and opinions. I continually urge pastors who receive the traditional Barry
Lynn "scare letter" to simply ignore it. America needs your voice!
The Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, N.Y., had its "IRS letter" pulled
for one day a few years ago. For the full story on this single instance in
American history where a church's tax exemption was challenged, I am, by
permission, reprinting an article by Mat Staver, general counsel and
president of the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, a law firm of several
hundred attorneys that defends the constitutional rights of churches
and Christians. It appears below.
In the meantime, pastors, continue to speak the truth from your pulpits.
Don't let any inaccurate letters scare you away from urging your
congregations to political action.
CHURCH'S LOSS OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS LETTER TURNS OUT TO BE A VICTORY FOR
CHURCHES
by Mathew D. Staver
Founder, President and General Counsel
Liberty Counsel, Orlando, FL
http://www.lc.org
On May 12, 2000, the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
sided with the IRS' decision to revoke a tax-exempt letter ruling from the
Church at Pierce Creek located in Binghamton, NY. However, the Court ruling
shows that the IRS has very little authority over churches. (1) The ruling
underscores the fact that churches do not need to fear the loss of their
tax-exempt status.
The case began on October 30, 1992, four days before the presidential
election, when the Church at Pierce Creek placed full-page advertisements in
USA Today and the Washington Times. Each ad bore the headline "Christians
Beware" and pointed out that then-Governor Bill Clinton had extreme views
regarding abortion and homosexuality. The advertisement clearly noted that
it was sponsored by the Church and its pastor and furthermore solicited "tax
deductible donations" for the advertisement. The ads then gave the Church's
address. As a result, the Church received hundreds of contributions.
On November 20, 1992, the IRS notified the Church that it intended to
conduct an inquiry as to whether the Church was operating as a tax-exempt
organization. After negotiations failed, the IRS revoked the Church's
tax-exempt letter ruling and the Church filed suit.
The Court pointed out that under the Internal Revenue Code, churches are the
only institutions that are not required to apply for tax-exempt status.
Churches, by their very nature, are considered tax-exempt. (2) While
churches may ask the IRS for an advance letter ruling, churches are not
required to do so. If a church does not seek a letter ruling, a donor's
contributions are still tax deductible. In the event of an audit, the donor
must prove that the church is operating like a tax-exempt organization and
following the requirements of IRS Code 501(c)(3), which includes a
prohibition on endorsing or opposing a candidate for political office. If a
letter ruling is in place, the donor simply points to the letter ruling on
file with the IRS.
The Church at Pierce Creek had applied for and received a letter ruling. The
IRS simply revoked the letter ruling and the Church sued to get it back. The
Court noted that "because of the unique treatment churches receive under
the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more
symbolic than substantial."
Indeed, the tax-exempt letter revocation is only symbolic and not
substantive. During the oral argument, counsel for the IRS confirmed that if
the Church chose not to intervene in future political campaigns, it may hold
itself out as a 501(c)(3) organization and receive all of the benefits of
that status. The Court wrote: "All that will have been lost is the
advance assurance of deductibility in the event a donor should be audited."
(3) The Court also pointed out that revocation of the letter ruling does not
make the Church liable for the payment of taxes. (4) As the IRS conceded
during oral argument, "the revocation of the exemption does not convert bona
fide donations into income taxable to the Church." (5) The Court also noted
that it knew of no authority "to prevent the Church from reapplying for a
prospective determination of its tax-exempt status and regaining the advance
assurance of deductibility - provided, of course, that it renounces
future involvement in political campaigns."
(6) So what is the impact of this ruling? It's certainly not as Barry Lynn,
of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, declared by
saying the ruling was a "staggering defeat for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell
and others who want to convert America's churches into a partisan political
machine." Indeed, this ruling actually helps Pat Robertson and Dr. Jerry
Falwell.
Understand that the only thing the Church lost in this case is its advance
tax-exempt letter ruling. Contributions given prior to the revocation of the
IRS letter are still deductible and are not taxable to the Church. After the
letter ruling was revoked, the Church could continue as a church, continue
receiving donations, and donors could continue to claim deductions on their
income tax return, provided that the Church did not continue to endorse or
oppose candidates. If the Church wants an advance letter ruling at some
point in the future, it is free to ask for another one. Obviously in the
case of the presidential election, the Church could easily cease endorsing
or opposing a candidate since the election had transpired.
Either the Church was naive, or it sought to pick a fight with the IRS. The
case included several hundred pages of newspaper articles where other
churches had invited candidates to speak in services where the IRS did
nothing. The Church at Pierce Creek sought to make headlines when it took
out full-page ads in USA Today and the Washington Times. The Church then
clearly identified itself and requested contributions. This is the first
case in history where a church has ever lost its tax-exempt letter
ruling. It is the most outrageous set of facts, because the full-page ads
essentially put a target in the church's front yard. Absent these
outrageous facts, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status.
Moreover, even with these facts begging for a fight with the IRS, the case
shows the IRS has almost no teeth. A church can give up the tax-exempt
letter ruling, and continue on after that date so long as it doesn't
actively endorse or oppose a candidate. A church can then apply for another
letter ruling at some point in the future if it chooses to do so. In this
way, the church can continue on with its activity with virtually no
interruption.
The IRS regulations are clear that, while churches may not endorse or oppose
a candidate for political office, churches may educate about the candidates'
viewpoints. Education can take the form of sermons, forums, debates, or
voter guides. The church may educate about its doctrinal positions that are
relevant to the political races. Education is perfectly permissible for a
501(c)(3) organization. Moreover, churches can engage in lobbying for or
against legislation so long as churches do not devote more than a
substantial part of their overall activity toward lobbying efforts. Indeed,
no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for engaging in too much
lobbying.
Despite the huffing and puffing of groups like Americans United for
Separation of Church and State or People for the American Way, they are no
more powerful than the wolf blowing against the little pig's brick house. I
am sure that these organizations will try to terrorize pastors into silence,
but everyone should know that, instead of a muzzle, this case is actually a
megaphone for churches.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 12:27:37 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote
The leftist organization Americans United for Separation of
Church and State (AU) has called for the Internal Revenue
Service to revoke the tax exempt status of my church and
ministry because of the content of a recent "Falwell
Confidential" I wrote in which I suggested that President
Bush was the candidate of choice for conservative Christians.
Churches/religious organizations fall under 501(c) (3) of the
IRS tax codes. To quote the relevant passages from the IRS
itself:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for elective public office."
As Jerry Falwell himself admits, in print, that he did violate
IRS code section 501 (c) (3), it is the duty & responsibility
of the IRS to remove this highly favorable (and oh so
profitable to Jerry Falwell) tax status.
They won't, of course. It's their job, they're paid to enforce
the tax codes, but Falwell is a Bush cheerleader.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 06:51:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:27:37 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote, quoting Falwell:
The ... organization, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State (AU) has called for the Internal Revenue
Service to revoke the tax exempt status of my church and
ministry because of the content of a recent "Falwell
Confidential" I wrote in which I suggested that President
Bush was the candidate of choice for conservative Christians.
Churches/religious organizations fall under 501(c) (3) of the
IRS tax codes. To quote the relevant passages from the IRS
itself:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for elective public office."
As Jerry Falwell himself admits, in print, that he did violate
IRS code section 501 (c) (3), it is the duty & responsibility
of the IRS to remove this highly favorable (and oh so
profitable to Jerry Falwell) tax status.
They won't, of course. It's their job, they're paid to enforce
the tax codes, but Falwell is a Bush cheerleader.
From your earlier post:
" ...Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or
revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of
certain excise tax."
Yeah, "may result."
Fat chance. What the IRS is literally telling you is that they
won't enforce their very own regulations, unless they feel
like it.
Falwell is a mouth piece for the lunatic right-wing, and a
self-appointed cheerleader for the neo-cons. Even though
he clearly violated IRS regulations (and admits it) they
won't touch him.
Pat Robertson had to openly break the tax laws for YEARS
with his "Christian Coalition," with complaints filed against
him constantly, and still the IRS only took away his status
after 1) a decade had gone by and 2) Robertson made it
clear that he would not & could not stop violating the tax
codes (as his "Christian Coalition" was created specifically
to influence elections).
Right wingers don't have to obey the law. Not in this country.
You just made some EXCELLENT points.
However, there are MILLIONS of fair-minded egalitarians on
this country. And IF a fair percentage of those -- even .01% --
were to file complaints with regularity against ALL the churches
and televangelists who break this law -- you can bet that the IRS
would be left with no choice BUT to crack down on them.
Because the OTHER oprative verbiage in that paragraph are
the words, "absolutely prohibited."
So it's up to US. We DO have the power -- IF we have the
gumption and drive to APPLY it.
The bigots are COUNTING on our NOT having that.
It's time for us to fool them!
And since it's unlikely that complete success can be achieved
between now and the election, AFTER Kerry is elected, we can
ask him to ASSIST us in this effort. That can REALLY get the
ball rolling!!
Our MOST important task now is to vote this bigoted admini-
stration OUT of office, along with as many as possible of its
cronies in Congress.
REMEMBER -- We have the chance on November 2nd to
vote ALL of the bigots OUT of the House of representatives!!
And a full ONE-THIRD of them OUT of the Senate!
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
21 Jul 2004 09:40:49 PM |
|
|
So, what's y'all's take on this?
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
21 Jul 2004 10:46:19 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ROFLc.4608$B42.1465@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
So, what's y'all's take on this?
-Tock
Nothing's changed.
Falwell's an ignorant dolt, and this level of "doltiness" increases daily by
a factor of 1.6.
He's a typical extremist that wants to play politics from the pulpit, but
preserve his "tax exempt" status.
Where the hell's Larry Flynt when you need him.....
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 12:37:09 AM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote
Falwell's an ignorant dolt, and this level of "doltiness"
increases daily by a factor of 1.6.
He's a typical extremist that wants to play politics from
the pulpit, but preserve his "tax exempt" status.
The issue isn't Falwell, it's the IRS. Falwell clearly voilated
IRS rules & regulations involving 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt
organizations.
Here's the entire relevant paragraph, as I found it on the IRS
web site:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for elective public office. Contributions to political
campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or
written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in
opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate
the prohibition against political campaign activity.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or
revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of
certain excise tax."
Yeah, "may result."
Fat chance. What the IRS is literally telling you is that they
won't enforce their very own regulations, unless they feel
like it.
Falwell is a mouth piece for the lunatic right-wing, and a
self-appointed cheerleader for the neo-cons. Even though
he clearly violated IRS regulations (and admits it) they
won't touch him.
Pat Robertson had to openly break the tax laws for YEARS
with his "Christian Coalition," with complaints filed against
him constantly, and still the IRS only took away his status
after 1) a decade had gone by and 2) Robertson made it
clear that he would not & could not stop violating the tax
codes (as his "Christian Coalition" was created specifically
to influence elections).
Right wingers don't have to obey the law. Not in this country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 07:45:23 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U_CdnfkVRsamzGLdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote
Falwell's an ignorant dolt, and this level of "doltiness"
increases daily by a factor of 1.6.
He's a typical extremist that wants to play politics from
the pulpit, but preserve his "tax exempt" status.
The issue isn't Falwell, it's the IRS. Falwell clearly voilated
IRS rules & regulations involving 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt
organizations.
Is there a difference between these rules and regulations governing a 501c3
and a 501c4 organization? That's what Uncle Jerry says his front group is:
----
By the way, this Falwell Confidential weekly newsletter is owned and
sponsored by the Liberty Alliance. The Liberty Alliance is a not-for-profit
educational and lobbying organization. It is an IRS recognized 501(c)(4)
corporation, chartered in Washington, D.C., that is allowed to lobby
Congress and influence legislation.
----
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 08:12:05 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
Is there a difference between these rules and regulations
governing a 501c3 and a 501c4 organization? That's
what Uncle Jerry says his front group is:
Religious organizations fall under 501 (c) (3), and groups
that have their 501 (c) (3) status revoked are not allowed
to seek refuge under 501 (c) (4), according to IRS regulations.
Regardless, a 501 (c) (4) is a "Social Welfare" group
(organization), according to the IRS, and they do have a
lot more freedom to engage in politics. In fact, they can
even lobby. However, the exact same rules apply in the
case of candidates seeking public office:
"The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or
indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns
on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public
office."
Clearly, even if Jerry's group is a 501 (c) (4) organization,
he still violated the IRS regulations, and he still admitted
doing so in writing.
Check it out yourself:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/welfare/article/0,,id=96178,00.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 09:28:06 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ObednfRYzYpGJmLdRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
Is there a difference between these rules and regulations
governing a 501c3 and a 501c4 organization? That's
what Uncle Jerry says his front group is:
Religious organizations fall under 501 (c) (3), and groups
that have their 501 (c) (3) status revoked are not allowed
to seek refuge under 501 (c) (4), according to IRS regulations.
Regardless, a 501 (c) (4) is a "Social Welfare" group
(organization), according to the IRS, and they do have a
lot more freedom to engage in politics. In fact, they can
even lobby. However, the exact same rules apply in the
case of candidates seeking public office:
"The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or
indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns
on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public
office."
Clearly, even if Jerry's group is a 501 (c) (4) organization,
he still violated the IRS regulations, and he still admitted
doing so in writing.
Check it out yourself:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/welfare/article/0,,id=96178,00.html
Cool!
-Tock
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 06:07:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:37:09 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote
Falwell's an ignorant dolt, and this level of "doltiness"
increases daily by a factor of 1.6.
He's a typical extremist that wants to play politics from
the pulpit, but preserve his "tax exempt" status.
The issue isn't Falwell, it's the IRS. Falwell clearly voilated
IRS rules & regulations involving 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt
organizations.
Here's the entire relevant paragraph, as I found it on the IRS
web site:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for elective public office. Contributions to political
campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or
written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in
opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate
the prohibition against political campaign activity.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or
revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of
certain excise tax."
Yeah, "may result."
Fat chance. What the IRS is literally telling you is that they
won't enforce their very own regulations, unless they feel
like it.
Falwell is a mouth piece for the lunatic right-wing, and a
self-appointed cheerleader for the neo-cons. Even though
he clearly violated IRS regulations (and admits it) they
won't touch him.
Pat Robertson had to openly break the tax laws for YEARS
with his "Christian Coalition," with complaints filed against
him constantly, and still the IRS only took away his status
after 1) a decade had gone by and 2) Robertson made it
clear that he would not & could not stop violating the tax
codes (as his "Christian Coalition" was created specifically
to influence elections).
Right wingers don't have to obey the law. Not in this country.
You just made some EXCELLENT points.
However, there are MILLIONS of fair-minded egalitarians on
this country. And IF a fair percentage of those -- even .01% --
were to file complaints with regularity against ALL the churches
and televangelists who break this law -- you can bet that the IRS
would be left with no choice BUT to crack down on them.
Because the OTHER oprative verbiage in that paragraph are
the words, "absolutely prohibited."
So it's up to US. We DO have the power -- IF we have the
gumption and drive to APPLY it.
The bigots are COUNTING on our NOT having that.
It's time for us to fool them!
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Eternal Clayton Of The Spotty Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 01:03:52 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ROFLc.4608$B42.1465@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
So, what's y'all's take on this?
-Tock
That all sensible Americans should be moved to one place (Rhode Island
should be plenty big enough to hold all of them) give them gas masks and
then fumigate the rest of the country to get rid of the idiotic lice and
vermin!
.
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
22 Jul 2004 05:59:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:03:52 +1000,
Anonymous Coward, "The Eternal Clayton Of The Spotty *****" wrote:
"Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So, what's y'all's take on this?
-Tock
That all sensible Americans should be moved to one place
(Rhode Island should be plenty big enough to hold all of them)
give them gas masks and then fumigate the rest of the country
to get rid of the idiotic lice and vermin!
That's overkill.
Because it has been calculated that the entire human race -- all
7 billion or so of the world's people, would fit into the volume of
one cubic mile of space. So America's 270-million-plus SENSIBLE,
fair-minded, and compassionate **egalitarians** WOULD fit into a
two-dimensional area the size of Rhode Island. But fumigating the
entire rest of the country just to polish off the relative handful) by
comparison to the egalitarians) of mindless, bigoted, hateful,
socially- retarded and sociopathic losers that comprise the nation's
homophobes/Anti-Choicers/RRR cultists -- America's TRULY
"idiotic lice and vermin" -- is what would be overkill.
Because they would all fit easily into the space of just one small
CITY, and all you'd need to do is fumigate THAT.
See? All you need to do is simple math.
But , of course, that's 'WAY beyond the capabilities of the truly
simple-MINDED.
You know. People like YOU.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Eternal Clayton Of The Spotty Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
23 Jul 2004 08:15:52 PM |
|
|
"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41019afe.25391209@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:03:52 +1000,
Anonymous Coward, "The Eternal Clayton Of The Spotty *****" wrote:
"Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So, what's y'all's take on this?
-Tock
That all sensible Americans should be moved to one place
(Rhode Island should be plenty big enough to hold all of them)
give them gas masks and then fumigate the rest of the country
to get rid of the idiotic lice and vermin!
That's overkill.
Because it has been calculated that the entire human race -- all
7 billion or so of the world's people, would fit into the volume of
one cubic mile of space. So America's 270-million-plus SENSIBLE,
fair-minded, and compassionate **egalitarians** WOULD fit into a
two-dimensional area the size of Rhode Island. But fumigating the
entire rest of the country just to polish off the relative handful) by
comparison to the egalitarians) of mindless, bigoted, hateful,
socially- retarded and sociopathic losers that comprise the nation's
homophobes/Anti-Choicers/RRR cultists -- America's TRULY
"idiotic lice and vermin" -- is what would be overkill.
Because they would all fit easily into the space of just one small
CITY, and all you'd need to do is fumigate THAT.
See? All you need to do is simple math.
But , of course, that's 'WAY beyond the capabilities of the truly
simple-MINDED.
You know. People like YOU.
Were both on the same side, doofus. It's just my opinion that the
"mindless, bigoted, hateful,
socially- retarded and sociopathic losers that comprise the nation's
homophobes/Anti-Choicers/RRR cultists" way outnumber the sensible people in
your country. If I'm wrong...and I hope I am...then the world has a
chance...if not....we're all totally fucked! At this moment in time, the
psychos are in charge of the armoury and all the guns are loaded and cocked
and the people holding them are in a bad mood and the voices in their heads
are speaking to them!
.
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: 21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell |
23 Jul 2004 10:51:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:15:52 +1000,
"The Eternal Clayton Of The Spotty *****"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonyemail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
Anonymous Coward, "The Eternal Clayton Of The Spotty *****" wrote:
"Tock" <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So, what's y'all's take on this?
-Tock
That all sensible Americans should be moved to one place
(Rhode Island should be plenty big enough to hold all of them)
give them gas masks and then fumigate the rest of the country
to get rid of the idiotic lice and vermin!
That's overkill.
Because it has been calculated that the entire human race -- all
7 billion or so of the world's people, would fit into the volume of
one cubic mile of space. So America's 270-million-plus SENSIBLE,
fair-minded, and compassionate **egalitarians** WOULD fit into a
two-dimensional area the size of Rhode Island. But fumigating the
entire rest of the country just to polish off the relative handful) by
comparison to the egalitarians) of mindless, bigoted, hateful,
socially- retarded and sociopathic losers that comprise the nation's
homophobes/Anti-Choicers/RRR cultists -- America's TRULY
"idiotic lice and vermin" -- is what would be overkill.
Because they would all fit easily into the space of just one small
CITY, and all you'd need to do is fumigate THAT.
See? All you need to do is simple math.
But , of course, that's 'WAY beyond the capabilities of the truly
simple-MINDED.
You know. People like YOU.
We're both on the same side, doofus.
I apologize if I misinterpreted you. But if you look at what you
wrote, I'm sure you can see HOW I could have made that error.
It's just my opinion that the "mindless, bigoted, hateful,
socially-retarded and sociopathic losers that comprise the nation's
homophobes/Anti-Choicers/RRR cultists" 'way outnumber the
sensible people in your country. If I'm wrong...and I hope I am... then
the world has a chance...if not....we're all totally fucked! At this
moment in time, the psychos are in charge of the armoury and all
the guns are loaded and cocked and the people holding them
are in a bad mood and the voices in their heads are speaking to
them!
Ah. Then I have some very GOOD news for you! Because when
they are put in the position of actually having the power to impose
hatefulness upon people, MOST Americans want no part of that.
Here are rwo good examples to PROVE that. The first is from 1998,
and the second happened in February of THIS year (2004) ---
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The only polls that COUNT are at the BALLOT BOXES.
THAT'S where push comes to shove, and people have their
CHANCE either to be control-freaks, or to be FAIR-minded.
In 1998, the Anti-Choicers had managed to get proposed bans of
ID&E abortions (the so-called, mis-named, MID-term procedure called
"partial birth."), as referendum items on the ballots of two whole
STATES. Literally MILLIONS of people were about get their say with
respect to the Anti-Choicers' MOST emotional (and lied-about)
procedure! The actually were faced with the dubious "opportunity" of
DENYING access to that procedure, to the women in their states.
This was VERY interesting, since opinion polls sample only a few
thouand people at MOST. Usually more like 250 to 1,200. NOW, a poll
having the force of LAW was about to sample MILLIONS of people in
Colorado and Washington State,
Fortunately, the people came through, and PROVED their fairness,
by soundly REJECTING the proposed bans, in BOTH states.
So much for Anti-Choice. In the minds of MOST people, it's been
DEAD DUCK for YEARS, now. We PRO-Choicers simply are going
to be around for the mopping-up operation, to ENSURE that that
loathesome agenda REMAINS dead. Until it joins its first cousin in
bigotry, segregation, in EXTINCTION.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The *highest* percentage of gays that anyone claims, in the
population, is 10%. So just for fun, let's assume that figure is
true. HOWEVER... recent polls have shown that the percentage
of people in America who would be supportive of same-sex civil unions
(but not "marriage," semantically-speaking... and really, that's the
ONLY difference) is now very close to 50%. Any straight person who
would not object to same-sex civil unions are ALLIES of the gays.
And if we used only 40% (and there are more allies than that, as I
just said), then we'd have the following:
Gays 10% -- 29,000,000 Americans
Straight Allies 30% -- 87,000,000 Americans
___ __________________
TOTAL Gays & Allies 40% -- 116,000,000 Americans
Ratio: 3-1. Three times more straight allies than gays.
AT LEAST!
Using more realistic numbers; that 5% of population is gay, and
45% of the population favors the granting of the right of gays to
have same-sex civil unions, we have the following figures, which
probably approximate today's reality very closely:
Gays 5% -- 14,500,000 Americans
Straight Allies 45% -- 130,500,000 Americans
___ __________________
TOTAL Gays & Allies 50% -- 145,000,000 Americans
Ratio: 9-1. NINE times more straight allies than gays.
Using either set of figures, the hateful bigots LOSE, big-time.
Three-to-one is the BEST they can do, but that's unrealistically low.
Straight ALLIES of the gays vastly **outnumber** the gays,
themselves.
From:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html
________________________________________________
Views of Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions:
"Marriage" -- Make legal: 41% Keep Illegal: 55%
"Civil Unions" -- Make legal: 46% Keep Illegal: 51%
________________________________________________
This reliable ABC News Poll PROVES that gays are *substanially*
outnumbered by their straight allies.
Now -- let's take a look at the recent Wisconsin Primary...
which took place several days AFTER everyone had had the chance
to see same-sex couples in San Francisco being joyously and fairly
married. (And Wisconsin is in the American Heartland... the region
regarded to be "conservative.")
On Feb. 21, 2004, I wrote ---
The Wisconsin primary *last week* was an OPEN primary,
in which people from all parties, including Republicans and
Independents, could vote. Thus, it represented a cross-
section of that state's population.
Exit polls by CNN revealed that *** 61% *** SUPPORT
same-sex marriage/civil unions. Right here in America's
heartland. So by this time, the percentage in favor is
probably even higher on the traditionally more open-minded
coasts!
Mindless, sociopathic, and hateful bigotry is on a fast
track right down the Drain of Exitnction. Where it BELONGS.
America is OUTGROWING such stupidity.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
So take heart!
The majority of the U.S. Senate just very SENSIBLY **rejected**
an attempt to poison and pollute our Consititution with a Bigotry
Amendment.
NEXT, they need to SCRAP the current attempt to tie the hands of
our egalitarian appellate courts, which have the power to STRIKE DOWN
all of the loathsome "DOMA" laws (federal and state), and *state*
attempts to amend *their* constitutions in favor of bigotry.
THEN, and most importantly of all, we need to OUST Chief Bigot
G.W. Bush in the November election, and eliminate these threats to
American's personal liberties.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
July 1 2004 What's our good friend Jerry Falwell got to say to us today?
Our good friend, Jerry Falwell, has important words . . . June 17, 2004
7/14/04 What has our good friend, Jerry Falwell, have to say to us today?
What's our good friend, Jerry Falwell, got to say today? June 25, 2004
Greywolf brought up a good topic...being happy and content wherever we live irrespective of our surroundings.
OT: We hate our politicians, but we've never had it so good
We seldom question if more of a "good thing" is desirable for our supposed happiness in life. The question, that Voluntary Simplicity helps answer, is the question of what IS enough so we may be happy right now in the present.
Re: SATURDAY & SUNDAY LOOK GOOD FOR OUR 9/11 & 12 CELEBRATIONS!
| News: Inflating declarations of good intent with religious rhetoric about God being on our side is obscene.
Re: *post 101* >> GOOD NEWS! - Over 2000 years ago Jesus Christ suffered and died on a cross and rose from the dead so that we can be forgiven of our sins(misdeeds) and have a home in Heaven when this life has ended. Most people just don't know how t
Our Good Christian Boy
We seldom question if more of a "good thing" is desirable for our supposed happiness in life.
Re: JESUS CHRIST WENT TO THE CROSS SO YOU CAN GO TO HEAVEN - The good news is that God came from Heaven to earth in the person of Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago and died for our past, present and future sins(misdeeds). He was born in the land of Is
Re: *post 100* >> GOOD NEWS! - Over 2000 years ago Jesus Christ suffered and died on a cross and rose from the dead so that we can be forgiven of our sins(misdeeds) and have a home in Heaven when this life has ended. Most people just don't know how t
A good portion of our modern science was founded by creationists.
|
|
|
