Kamala Harris Says No To The Separation Of Church And State

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  2 months ago  •  44 comments

By:   Graham J. Noble

Kamala Harris Says No To The Separation Of Church And State
Harris decided to lecture Virginia churchgoers on the subject of who they should vote for in that state’s upcoming gubernatorial election. While presidents and vice presidents are exempt from the prohibitions of the Hatch Act, they are not allowed to violate the Johnson Amendment – but that appears to be the danger zone into which Harris has wandered. Left-wingers in America love to talk about “the separation of church and state.” They repeat this mantra as if it is written in the...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

The hypocrisy of the left is so blatant.  They really only care about separation of church and state as a tool to keep Christian conservatives from advocating our beliefs.  It’s no big deal for any other ideology or group to do so. It will be interesting to see what the militant secularists think of this violation of their basic beliefs.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Although Kamala Harris is rumored to be vice president of the United States, no-one knows what she’s doing or where she is most of the time. She has managed, thus far, to keep a profile lower than a snake’s belly. Nevertheless, the woman who ran the least successful presidential campaign in American history, if one ignores Beto O’Rourke , managed to secure the second-to-top job in the federal government, surpassed only by a struggling white guy. Quite a role model for young women everywhere. But, worthy or not, Ms. Harris has proved she can flout federal law with the best of them. Perhaps that’s what she considers women’s empowerment.


GettyImages-1235880883-scaled.jpg

(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)


Not to be outdone by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who again recently violated the Hatch Act , Harris decided to lecture Virginia churchgoers on the subject of who they should vote for in that state’s upcoming gubernatorial election. While presidents and vice presidents are exempt from the prohibitions of the Hatch Act, they are not allowed to violate the Johnson Amendment – but that appears to be the danger zone into which Harris has wandered.

Left-wingers in America love to talk about “the separation of church and state.” They repeat this mantra as if it is written in the Constitution, which it isn’t. When it comes to using places of worship to disseminate political messaging, though, progressives have no qualms about mixing religion and politics. Thus, Harris recorded a strong and direct endorsement of Terry McCauliffe that is being played in churches across Virginia in direct violation of the Johnson Amendment.

Named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954, the Johnson Amendment is an addition to the Internal Revenue Code addressing tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. In broad terms, it forbids these entities from openly advocating or opposing candidates for political office. Harris recorded an endorsement of McCauliffe that was tailored specifically to be played in churches during Sunday worship services. Digging into the legal technicalities, then, Harris may not herself be violating the Johnson Amendment, but she is certainly compelling or encouraging churches to do so by playing her message to their congregations.

Though it has gotten to the point where it is a daunting task indeed to keep track of the number of times Biden administration officials have bent or broken federal law, the problem goes beyond partisan politics. Countless American citizens have, at one time or another, had to deal with the financially and emotionally damaging consequences of breaking a law, even if the transgression lacked malice or any attempt to do harm. Politicians and unelected government officials, by contrast, almost routinely violate or bend federal laws and get away with it.

At what point do the people decide the two-tier justice system that clearly exists is intolerable? If an individual occupying the office of vice president of the United States can bend a federal law to her advantage, why should anybody else be punished for doing the same?


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    2 months ago
Left-wingers in America love to talk about “the separation of church and state.” They repeat this mantra as if it is written in the Constitution, which it isn’t. When it comes to using places of worship to disseminate political messaging, though, progressives have no qualms about mixing religion and politics. Thus, Harris recorded a strong and direct endorsement of Terry McCauliffe that is being played in churches across Virginia in direct violation of the Johnson Amendment.

Named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954, the Johnson Amendment is an addition to the Internal Revenue Code addressing tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. In broad terms, it forbids these entities from openly advocating or opposing candidates for political office. Harris recorded an endorsement of McCauliffe that was tailored specifically to be played in churches during Sunday worship services. Digging into the legal technicalities, then, Harris may not herself be violating the Johnson Amendment, but she is certainly compelling or encouraging churches to do so by playing her message to their congregations.

Though it has gotten to the point where it is a daunting task indeed to keep track of the number of times Biden administration officials have bent or broken federal law, the problem goes beyond partisan politics. Countless American citizens have, at one time or another, had to deal with the financially and emotionally damaging consequences of breaking a law, even if the transgression lacked malice or any attempt to do harm. Politicians and unelected government officials, by contrast, almost routinely violate or bend federal laws and get away with it.

At what point do the people decide the two-tier justice system that clearly exists is intolerable? If an individual occupying the office of vice president of the United States can bend a federal law to her advantage, why should anybody else be punished for doing the same?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    2 months ago
Democratic leaders have pulled out the stops to help Terry McAuliffe's struggling campaign for governor of Virginia. Figures from Barack Obama to Stacey Abrams have stumped for McAuliffe, who is in a tight race with businessman Glenn Youngkin. 

The key for McAuliffe is Black voters and, to spur turnout, Vice President Kamala Harris has taped an endorsement of McAuliffe that is reportedly being played at hundreds of African American churches around the state. The problem is the "Johnson Amendment" makes such political pitches in churches a violation of federal law. 

Making matters worse, this knowing violation occurred just days after the filing of a complaint against White House presssecretary Jen Psaki for clearly violating the Hatch Act in using the White House press room to support McAullife .

JONATHAN TURLEY: IS DURHAM CIRCLING JAKE SULLIVAN? SPECIAL COUNSEL MAY NOT BE DONE WITH BIDEN ADMIN OFFICIAL

The Harris video was aired last Sunday and is scheduled to air again next Sunday. It was also quoted and aired by CNN. As Harris said in her much maligned "Space video," you can see the violation of federal law "with your own eyes."

It is part of McAuliffe’s push called "Souls to the Polls" and is a full-throated endorsement of McAuliffe that calls on Black churches to turn out for his election. Harris declares "I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment."

The problem is that such direct politicking in tax-exempt churches has been unlawful for decades. Section 501(c)3 states:

"Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)),  and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Harris is calling souls to the polls in a straight political speech. 

That bolded language is the "Johnson Amendment" prohibition.

The IRS makes clear that such violations will not be tolerated. The agency warns that tax-exempt groups "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." It further stresses:

"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. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

The video was a direct political pitch to be played in hundreds of churches.

What is most hypocritical is that the Democrats used the opposition to the Johnson Amendment by former President Donald Trump as a rallying cry in the last election. Trump boasted that he got rid of the Johnson Amendment. That was not true. Here is the critical language in the Trump executive order:

"In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure,  to the extent permitted by law , that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about  moral or political issues from a religious perspective , where speech of similar character has,  consistent with law , not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury."

The order expressly requires adherence to federal law and only states that "moral or political issues" may be discussed "from a religious perspective." Harris is calling souls to the polls in a straight political speech. So even under Trump’s order, this would be a violation.

Putting aside any federal violation in such pitches, Trump’s desire to get the vote out through evangelical churches was widely denounced as an attack on the separation of Church and State. That was before McAuliffe ran into trouble in what was viewed as a reliably blue state that Biden won by a wide margin. Now the same media and legal figures are silent….

Read more: 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2  seeder  XXJefferson51    2 months ago

Demands separation of church and state Cheers dems campaigning in black churches

66881cdd8c658934f4906b42e7c6ef82ed0d764283cbb6eb2001fbb870f2bd2e.jpg
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3  Ed-NavDoc    2 months ago

So much for separation of church and state.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3    2 months ago

They never complained when churches engaged in abolition, civil rights, anti war messages.  It was only when the more conservative evangelical churches started becoming involved in political matters in the late 1970’s that it became a problem or an issue., 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3    2 months ago
So much for separation of church and state.

Given how so  many left wing posters obsession with this topic I assumed this seed would be filled with left wing denunciations of Harris' behavior.  

Amazingly, they are okay with left wingers using churches for left wing partisanship.  It's almost like their principles are completely situational.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 months ago

Almost?  They are total hypocrites on this matter and their silence is deafening.  Where’s AU?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 months ago

I think I put my finger on it earlier. No one gives a shit about this. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    2 months ago

No hard core leftist liberals give shit about this.

There, I fixed it for you.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2.1    2 months ago

They're heeerrreee...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
3.2.5  arkpdx  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 months ago

They have principles? Who knew?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.4    2 months ago

I’m wanting to know what Barry Lynn of Americans United for separation of church and state thinks of this?  Or the evil people that are the FFRF?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  arkpdx @3.2.5    2 months ago

Hypocrisy and double standards are their principles.  They excel at those!  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 months ago

Situational ethics is big in secular progressive circles. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4  Dismayed Patriot    2 months ago

What a load of horseshit.

Harris recorded an endorsement of McCauliffe that was tailored specifically to be played in churches during Sunday worship services.

That is in no way shape or form a violation of the Hatch Act nor does it violate the Johnson Amendment.

Harris may not herself be violating the Johnson Amendment

There is no "may" about it, she is not, end of story, full stop. This isn't journalism, this is just petty smears, conjecture and assumption based on fantasy "what if's".

but she is certainly compelling or encouraging churches to do so by playing her message to their congregations.

But, but, but, but.... but nothing. She has absolutely no control over where someone might play her recorded endorsement, trying to claim she is somehow "encouraging" or "compelling" is nothing but unicorn poop, aka fantasy horse shit.

Countless American citizens have, at one time or another, had to deal with the financially and emotionally damaging consequences of breaking a law

Oh please, even in the seed it says "Harris may not herself be violating the Johnson Amendment" yet then goes on to complain about all the supposed lawlessness. She is clearly not violating the law based upon the apparent facts given in the article.

it is a daunting task indeed to keep track of the number of times Biden administration officials have bent or broken federal law

If it was so daunting perhaps they could actually cite even one single example, this seed contains nada.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    2 months ago

She knew exactly the point of her message and who her intended audience was.  The content of what she said was knowingly intended to electioneer in church.  So you’d have had no problem if Mike Pence had recorded a get out there vote message intended for evangelical churches and evangelical churches in battle ground areas around the nation on the Sunday morning before the November election last year? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    2 months ago

I swear, people don't know what separation of church and state means...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @4.2    2 months ago

Tell me about it. Someone actually told me once that separation means the government could not get into or influence religion, but religion was ok to enter the government. It seems people's general understanding of civics is almost as dismal as their general understanding of science.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    2 months ago

separation means the government could not get into or influence religion, but religion was ok to enter the government. 

I guess you have never heard of Jeffersons  conversation with the  leaders of the Danbury Baptist Church where he said exactly that. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  arkpdx @4.2.2    2 months ago

That’s right.  He didn’t want government to side with one denomination over another with state power.  That was the wall he envisioned.  Not one to keep office holders from talking about God in their work or praying to Him.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @4.2.2    2 months ago
I guess you have never heard of Jeffersons  conversation with the  leaders of the Danbury Baptist Church where he said exactly that. 

Did you actually read or understand my post?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.3    2 months ago
Not one to keep office holders from talking about God in their work or praying to Him.

That is not what was said. It wasn't about individual beliefs. Only that religious beliefs could not be used to make laws or influence public policy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.4    2 months ago

No.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.2.7  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.6    2 months ago

Who said you could answer for me. Please refrain from doing so in the future. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @4.2.7    2 months ago

I stated the truth.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.6    2 months ago

Do you disagree?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.2.10  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.8    2 months ago

When did you do that? I never have seen you come anywhere close to the truth, EVER!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.5    2 months ago

Of course they can.People being their ideas and beliefs with them when they are elected to government office at any level. There is no way that somehow their religious beliefs will not be considered in the process of government and law making. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.11    2 months ago
People being their ideas and beliefs with them when they are elected to government office at any level. There is no way that somehow their religious beliefs will not be considered in the process of government and law making.

They can have their beliefs. But they cannot make policy based on belief or religion, lest it runs afoul of the Constitution. There must be a secular purpose or basis to it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.13  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.12    2 months ago

Democrats intend to cheat in Virginia by that and other means:  

Barack Obama Signals That Democrats Intend to Cheat in the Virginia Governor’s Election

by Kyle Becker about 5 hours ago updated about 4 hours ago

Barack Obama has signaled not-so-subtly that the Democrats fully intend to cheat in the Virginia governor’s election. In front of a modest crowd at a ticketed event at Virginia Commonwealth University, the former president endorsed gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe and emphasized repeatedly that voters can cast their ballots for him in the mail or at drop boxes.

“Before we start anything else, I want to remind you and everybody who’s watching, you don’t have to wait until November 2nd to cast your ballot,” he said. “You can vote early, right now. Either by mail or in person.”

“Don’ be lollygalling [ sic ],” he said. “Don’t be, don’t be sitting on the couch saying, ‘I’ll get to it later.’ You can vote early right now. If you get a ballot at home, you can return it by mail. Or you can hand it in at your local registrar’s office. Or you can take it to a drop-off location today. Don’t leave it on your desk.”

“Millions of Virginians voted early next year,” he added. “Let’s do it again this year.”

Terry McAuliffe, ex-DNC Chair and former Virginia Governor, is running neck-in-neck with Glenn Youngkin, a political newcomer, after once coasting at a comfortable lead. The latest Monmouth polling on the race show both are drawing about 46 percent , indicating that there are few undecideds. However, independents are late-breaking types and the longer McAuliffe and Youngkin are in a political heat, the higher the likelihood that independents may tilt for Youngkin.

Ahead of the speaking event, turnout at Virginia Commonwealth University appeared to be modest. It wasn’t Joe Biden-level paltry , but it was underwhelming nonetheless. The speakers at the event included Governor Ralph Northam, former presidential candidate Tim Kaine, Terry McAuliffe and Barack Obama himself.

thumbnail_Image-79.jpg

“Just hours before the event, the former president endorsed 21 other Virginia Democrats running for office,” WAVY also reported. For comparison, this is what a Barack Obama rally looked like in May 2012:

Youngkin is also holding a statewide bus tour today with stops in Hanover, Richmond, Midlothian and Glenn Allen, the report added.

While dozens of McAuliffe organizers and supporters turned out, many of them without masks, the Democratic Party continues to act like the coronavirus pandemic is stopping a significant number of voters from going to polling places in-person. The same Virginians that go to supermarkets and Virginia University home football games are being treated as if voting is a special case requiring no-excuse mass absentee ballots, which have been shown repeatedly to cause serious questions about election integrity and the validity of election results.

As WRIC reported, Virginia implemented ballot drop boxes in 2020 amidst the surging coronavirus pandemic.

“Gov. Ralph Northam (D) signed legislation in early September to allow localities to have ballot drop boxes inside and outside local registrar’s offices, at satellite voting sites and polling locations on Election Day,” WRIC reported .

“Before the measure was passed, Virginia Democrats stressed that the boxes would provide a secure alternative for voters to drop off their ballots without having to mail them or going to the post office while Republican lawmakers argued that the drop boxes could create opportunities for voter fraud,” the report added.

The election regulations provided to 8News show that the security of the ballots is far from ideal.

“The standards, which were provided to 8News, state that localities can decide whether to have a secure drop box or one monitored by a staff member,” the report said. “Secure drop boxes ‘must be constructed of durable material able to withstand vandalism, removal, and inclement weather, and be securely fastened to prevent moving or tampering’ and a video surveillance system must monitor them.”

“Staffed locations do not need to use a drop box, and instead may have ballots placed into either 1) a container placed behind a counter; or 2) a portable container that can be transported to a curbside or mobile voting area,” the Virginia Department of Elections stated. Absentee ballots dropped off inside the boxes will be collected at least twice a day “by two officers of election representing the two major political parties,” the department added.

A Capitol Research Center report on the 2020 elections updated in May 2021 shows the extensive interference in the Virginia election that was caused by drop boxes funded by the Mark Zuckerberg-backed Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL).

“Many Americans now know that Facebook founder and billionaire Mark Zuckerberg interfered in the 2020 election, pouring $350 million into an obscure Chicago-based nonprofit that redistributed the funds to county elections officials nationwide. What they might not know is just how widespread those grants were,” the Capital Research Center said.

“Meet the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), a group that burst into prominence after Zuckerberg increased the tiny nonprofit’s revenues—just $1.4 million in 2018—by a bewildering 24,900 percent in the lead-up to the 2020 election. CTCL used its newfound fortune to funnel five-, six-, seven-, even eight- figure grants to the government officials responsible for administering the 2020 election—with devastating results for Republicans,” the report continued.

“Now we’ve traced nearly $4 million from CTCL to Virginia, a state Democrats have eagerly colonized from their holdfast in Washington, DC, transforming the once reliable Republican Old Dominion into a leftist stronghold,” the report added. “In the spirit of disclosure—and because CTCL has not yet publicly disclosed its grant data—CRC has released its data for viewing here .”

The CRC then digs into the specific impact that Zuckerberg boxes played in the 2020 election. It is worth noting in detail.

“So what role did CTCL play in the Old Dominion? Virginia was always expected to be firmly in Biden’s grip, so the question isn’t whether CTCL funding flipped the state but rather how much its grants aided turnout in Democratic-leaning counties,” the CRC said. “A list of ‘ preliminary grants ‘ discovered online notes 38 counties and cities in Virginia that evidently received funding from CTCL. Of these, CRC has uncovered $3,968,221 in grants flowing to 38 Virginia counties and cities (including one not listed in CTCL’s preliminary document), leaving at least one more jurisdiction (Hanover County) that almost certainly received some money from the group.”

“How these funds were spent is generally unclear,” it stated in 2020. “In Fairfax County—the source of Biden’s greatest vote haul and recipient of the largest yet identified CTCL grant ($1,431,950) in Virginia—elections officials used the funds to ‘ support in-person early voting’ and ‘vote by mail’.”

The May 2021 update on how Fairfax County spent its funding is telling:

  • $967,294 for “temporary staffing support”
  • $59,850 for “vote-by-mail/absentee voting equipment or supplies”
  • $102,765 for “election administration equipment”
  • $54,802 for “voting materials in languages other than English”
  • $58,530 for “security for office and polling locations”

“Interestingly, categories included in the CTCL form (but which Fairfax didn’t apparently spend money on) include ‘ballot drop boxes,’ ‘drive-through voting,’ and ‘non-partisan voter education,’ as well as less alarming things such as ‘personal protective equipment’ for staff and cleaning expenses,” the CRC noted. “Fairfax County also applied for a 6-month extension for its grant (the report was filed in late January) to expend its remaining $187,709, which theoretically brings its CTCL funding through July 2021 and primary season for the state’s coming gubernatorial election in November.”

The effect of CTCL’s private funding of elections in Virginia appears to have had a significant effect. “The 14 CTCL-funded counties that Biden won received $3,563,610, or 89.8 percent of all the CTCL funds CRC has identified in Virginia,” the report pointed out.

“In July 2020, Virginia’s Democratic majority in the state legislature enacted statewide no-excuse absentee voting and early voting,” CRC added as background. “CTCL effectively bankrolled the Democrats’ biggest step toward replacing Election Day with ‘Election Month’ in the state’s largest county and a leftist stronghold.”

The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society has been a frequent critic of ballot drop boxes and has filed lawsuits seeking greater accountability regarding their usage in elections, such as the 2020 election in Georgia. These election integrity lawsuits have tended to be dismissed by the courts.

In a statement to The Georgia Star News , national survey research and strategic services company McLaughlin & Associates CEO John McLaughlin explained why many Americans are alarmed by the use of “drop boxes.”

“The drop boxes which have been devised by President Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe and paid for by Mark Zuckerberg’s millions are a partisan tool for unconstitutional Democratic ballot harvesting and fraud,” stated McLaughlin. “They were never authorized by the state legislature. They are overwhelmingly located in Democratic areas, have no secure chain of custody by the Secretary of State who had no clue where they are coming from and according to our polls gave Joe Biden 273,000 net votes in a race that is separate by roughly 12,000 votes out of 5 million.”

“McLaughlin stated that the lack of clarity concerning these drop boxes is disconcerting. He pointed out the suspect nature of the relationship between Big Tech’s involvement in these election processes and their coordinated efforts through fact-checkers , warning labels, and other forms of censorship about the election,” The Georgia Star News noted.

“Who really knows how many fraudulent votes cited by the Amistad Project evidence hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes came via Zuckerberg drop boxes? No wonder Zuckerberg and other Big Tech oligarchs are censoring Americans on social media,” he said. “It’s a coverup. I’ll bet the midnight ballots on the infamous Fulton County videos that were counted on election night after they sent Republican monitors home came from these drop boxes. They stole Georgia from President Trump. Now they will steal the U.S. Senate from the American people.”

Now, the Virginia governor’s race may be next. It is a worse form of disenfranchisement to cancel a legitimate voter’s ballot with a fraudulent one than any issue stemming from the illegitimate belief that “convenience” is a voter’s right. Every single ballot in every single “drop box” and polling location should have a clear chain-of-custody. If that doesn’t take place on November 2nd, then the election is fraudulent…

read more:
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.13    2 months ago

Just more partisan nonsense.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5  Ender    2 months ago

Of all the hypocritical bullshit.

Pastors from the pulpit would openly endorse donald and you all cheered.

Hypocrisy....

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ender @5    2 months ago

We aren’t the ones suffering from hypocrisy and double standards here.  You all objected anytime evangelical clergy went any where near a political issue or let another endorse a candidate for election and yet here we have the VP making the message and different minded churches airing it to their members and the silence is deafening.  If these churches face no consequences for airing electioneering then we will be ready to do this 100x over next year at this time of the year.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JBB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    2 months ago

Harris is no tax exempt 501C. She's a politician.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Ender  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    2 months ago

So you think a politician can be endorsed from the pulpit but not the other way around...

Why should they face consequences when according to you all, the church should have a say in politics.

Funny though that you only throw a fit when the other side does it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    2 months ago

Every pastors church that allows her electioneering message is one.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ender @5.1.2    2 months ago

The left always has done it.  It’s the conservatives churches that are much newer to getting involved in political issues. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    2 months ago
Harris is no tax exempt 501C.

No, she sure isn't.

She is an incompetent liability for the Biden/Harris Administration.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.4    2 months ago
"It’s the conservatives churches"

No such thing(s)

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    2 months ago

Actually there are.  Both from a theological point of view and a political one for some of them. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5    2 months ago

All they got plus projection, deflection, and denial.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
5.3  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @5    2 months ago

To paraphrase one of your liberal colleagues on an different seed

but, but, but what about ...

just a way to justify VP Camel Hairless's actions

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
6  Nerm_L    2 months ago

Not very surprising.  The left wing believes in institutional hierarchies.  That's why liberals will attack evangelical Christians while defending orthodox Islam.

What evangelical Christians do, described in political terms, is community organizing.  What evangelical Christians do is not that dissimilar from what BLM has done to organize 'protests' to challenge institutional authority.  Evangelical Christians are more reactionary and will organize in opposition to left wing institutional authority.

Evangelical Christians are reactionary community organizers that left wing liberals cannot control and subjugate.  Left wingers want the church involved in politics as long as the church can be controlled and used for their own community organizing.  The left wing desires to organize 'good' Christians who will be subordinate to left wing institutional authority.  That's what Kamala Harris is actually doing, organizing 'good' Christians.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 months ago

Pretty darn well said! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

XXJefferson51


22 visitors