Govt Subsidized Religion:
Liberty University Gets $445 Million From Taxpayers
The recent push by Republicans to eviscerate the poor, women, seniors, and the middle class is based on their evil ideology that only the wealthy deserve our precious tax dollars. Since the 112th Congress has been in session, the GOP has worked tirelessly to take from the poor to feed the rich, and their claim is the country is too broke to pay for programs to help the least fortunate among us. At a time when corporate wealth is growing exponentially and the oil industry is reaping obscene profits without paying tax on their wealth, Republicans claim that depriving them of more wealth will kill jobs and hurt the economy. However, there is another group of evil proponents of greed who are beneficiaries of Republican largesse with taxpayer dollars, and although the Founding Fathers specifically prohibited the government from funding and promoting their brand of hate and vitriol, the GOP continues enriching and establishing a religious ideology in America.
Last year, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University was the recipient of $445,000,000 of taxpayer dollars and it is typical of the unconstitutional practice of establishing a religion. Giving a religious organization nearly a half-a-billion dollars when Republicans are choking the life out of this country is immoral, and contributes to and perpetuates conservative Christian’s hatred of the poor. One of the missions of the fanatical Christian university is churning out “Christ-centered leaders, able to apply God’s word in every area of life.” Liberty University is unapologetic about their intentions and they boast about their mission with a promise to students to provide an “action-oriented curriculum dedicated to world evangelism and repudiation of political correctness.” If there is any misunderstanding exactly what they mean, the website lays out that they provide,
“A strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism, and firm support for America’s economic system of free enterprise.”
Religious fanatics are well-known as purveyors of supreme
hypocrisy, but if Liberty University is dedicated to the rejection of socialism and adherence to the free enterprise system; why are they taking nearly a half-a-billion dollars of taxpayer money to produce bible-toting nut jobs and greedy conservative minions? When the
founder of the university was alive, Jerry Falwell revealed the Christian conservative intention for this country and it should be a wake-up call to any legislator who claims to hold fast to the Founding Fathers’ original intent in the Constitution that religion and the government must be separate. Falwell wrote in a book
titled, America Can Be Saved, “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”
There is more to the story than the Christian plans to take over the schools and eventually the government and it should cause outrage to any semi-intelligent American who advocates for fairness and adherence to the Constitution. Liberty University, and indeed, nearly every church in America are tax exempt because they filed
a piece of paper claiming to be non-profit organizations. The government is giving American taxpayer dollars to a bunch of fanatical conservatives and they are not paying taxes on our money.
The church, sectarian universities, and free-market, Ayn Rand conservative Christians are no different than corporations or the oil
industry that rakes in obscene profits and pays nothing in taxes; because they claim to do “god’s work.”
The Christian bible makes no mention of god or Jesus telling their followers to oppose social programs that feed the poor or provide health care assistance to those who need it most. Conversely, the bible does not teach Christians to be greedy, free-market capitalists who give other taxpayers’ dollars to corporations, the wealthy, the oil industry, and private religious institutions intent on destroying the Democratic form of government to install a theocracy in its place. Falwell’s statement that churches should take over and
eliminate the public school system in America should be a portent of the dangers of giving tax dollars to anti-American religious fanatics. The Christian university has the same conservative ideology as the Koch brothers and Heritage Foundation that promotes eliminating public education in favor of private religious schools that propagate the notion that America was meant to be a privatized corporation promoting religious ideas.
Giving a Christian university nearly a half-a-billion dollars of taxpayer dollars is an outrage, but it also shows how far from the Founders original intent conservatives have taken America.
Liberty University has taken their privileged status so far, that in their mission statement they complain that a public university being
planned within 30 miles of the Christian school is a threat and will take away students and government money from Liberty University. It is worth noting that students from religious schools default on student loans at a much higher percentage than public school graduates that makes their gift of Americans’ tax dollars all the more outrageous because taxpayers are left holding the bag for their defaults. However, for some mysterious reason, faith-based groups in this country are given free rein to rob the government for taxpayer dollars just because they are non-profits and allegedly do the lord’s work.
It seems reasonable that at a time when the economy is sluggish and more Americans are out of work, conservatives would reconsider giving free money to the oil industry, corporations, the wealthy, and free riders at religious schools and help Americans eat, find shelter, and have affordable health care. Apparently though, conservatives would rather watch American citizens starve and lose their homes so Liberty University can churn out religiobots by the thousands who are well-trained in the conservative mindset that says social programs are despicable and only Christians are worthy of government funds. The Founding Fathers were quite specific about prohibiting government involvement in religion, but then again, conservatives have made it their life’s work to ignore the Constitution where it contradicts their belief that America is god’s chosen nation.
This country needs a bold group to put a stop to funding any religious organization and start making them pay taxes like every other citizen. Republicans contended that they had to slash social programs that feed the poor, seniors, and children because there were no funds available, but they do not mind giving taxpayer dollars to groups that pay no taxes and work to destroy what is left of the country.
Religious schools have no socially-redeeming quality and are a pariah on this nation. They have enjoyed favored status for too long and it is time to hold them to the standards the rest of Americans have to follow. That means paying taxes, following the Constitution, and stop trying to destroy the American way of life, because whether they want to admit it or not, the government is under no obligation to give them any funds and they have no business being involved in politics. Liberty University and every Christian who supports their philosophy are nothing more than charlatans who are stealing money from American taxpayers to inculcate anti-American values into their students with a goal of changing America into a theocracy where some Pseudo-Leader like Jerry Falwell is king and does the bidding of the wealthy industrialists.
Liberty University should teach 8th grade civics classes so their bible-toting students understand they have no right to take one cent of taxpayer’s dollars for their religious education; but that would never happen in a religious university that contradicts the Constitution. Unfortunately, with conservative Christians firmly
ensconced in the Supreme Court and Congress, it is going to be a long time before religion is purged from our government, and by then, Reverend Koch will be king and any sign of public education or secular government will have long disappeared; but there will be religious schools like Liberty University taking hundreds-of-millions
of taxpayers’ dollars to finally finish off any remaining non-believers while they wait for their savior to return. If and when a Jesus does return, he certainly will not recognize the carnival barkers who call themselves conservative Christians.
If Bob McDonnell could have kept the Virginia republicans out of the war on women he would be running for VP with the shape shifter he is standing beside in this photo. Sadly for Bob the moment someone says his name vaginal probe comes to the listeners mind. Bob is one of Pat Robinson's robots and try as hard as he might he has been unable to escape.
PLEDGE TO NOT INCREASE TAXES VIOLATES OATH OF OFFICE and Yes Bob Goodlatte signed it.
Smiling Bob reports directly to Grover Norquist
It continues to amaze me that so many Republicans, who extol the virtues of Constitutional purity, violate the Constitution, or advocate changing it, given every passing right-wing-outraged fad. There are so many of them.
The shear mass of their ‘fighting points,’ pouring in from religious, supply side, and anti-other sources converge like a raging river. If you wrote them all down in one place, they would fill a very large volume which, doubtless, they would beat like their bibles with the bruises unfortunately showing up on the Constitution.
Perhaps the most egregious violation currently is the “No Net Tax Increase” pledge that a large majority of Republicans have made to Grover Norquist. He says the pledge is to the voter, but he is the enforcer. Those who are US Senators and Representatives have violated their Oaths of Office by signing that pledge and should do the honorable thing by resigning, or if not, they should be removed from office. Let me repeat the Oath.
“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The underlining above is mine; I will show you why. First let me point out that this oath is a mandatory requirement in holding those offices. Article VI of the Constitution states: …. “The Senators and Representatives….shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution..”.
Here is the violation. Each of them has sworn or affirmed “..that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers (and I would argue, duties) given to Congress by the Constitution. It starts, “The Congress shall have power, to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”. I argue that this is not a privilege, but a duty since when new taxes are needed there is no one else specified to do it. The current refusal to raise the debt limit of the United States by those who have signed the “no-tax-increases-or-deduction-decreases-pledge,” means that they are refusing to do their duty to pay the nation’s already incurred debt, if in fact, new or increased taxes are needed.
In doing so, they are violating their oaths of office.
Furthermore, in taking the Oath, they swore that they did so “with no mental reservation or purpose of evasion” and that they would “faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” Clearly, they were either knowingly lying if they took the Oath of Office after signing the Grover Norquist pledge, having pledged that they would not
raise taxes, no matter what, as one means of paying the nation’s debts and providing for the nation’s defense and general welfare.
Signing that pledge meant that they had “mental reservations” about fully exercising the powers and duties of the office, and clearly intended to evade the duty to do so. If they signed it after
taking office, then they violated their Oath. Far better to do what Jon Huntsman did by saying that he would take no oaths or make no pledges other than the Oath of Office. Far better and more honorable, if knowing that being true to the Norquist pledge was a more sacred bond than the Oath of Office for the US Congress, it would have been to decline the Oath and the office. To take the Oath and office, intending to keep the Norquist pledge above all else, was to enter into a conspiracy with other pledge signers to change the Constitution of the United States without any citizens ever being able to vote on it.
Some who signed it, rather than lying, likely feared retribution from Norquist and his organization (it is unknown where he gets his funding). In that case, they willfully broke their oath and should be removed from office.
A little history is useful in understanding these Constitutional specifications. When the Constitutional Convention was convened to ‘improve’ the Articles of Confederation, the US was in a deep recession and was having difficulty paying its debts, particularly those owed the French for helping us during the Revolutionary War. Under the weak powers given the federal government, it was dependent on the states to fund it and pay its
debts. The states were merrily going their own ways and not doing a very good job of providing – something like deadbeat dads.
Furthermore, given no power over commerce, the federal government was unable to stop the states from waging trade wars against each other, and imposing tariffs to block competition. The states even had their own currencies. These were the conditions that were largely responsible for the recession and the philosophy of sovereign states rights and a weak central government was the source. Are you sure you want that again? Grover Norquist does.
A little more Constitutional history from a later period also has relevance here. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the rights of the recently freed slaves and some of its other provisions took other measures to assure that the secessionist states followed the laws of the land. You have recently heard Section 4 of that Amendment discussed as a means for the President to prevent the US from defaulting on its debts, despite blocking efforts by the no-new-taxes-pledge Republicans.
There is another provision of that same 14th Amendment that fits here as well. Section 3 states that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, … who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Consider that these anti-government, no-new-tax-pledge-Republicans are again attempting to significantly weaken
the federal government; some of them have even advocated secession. Furthermore, in signing the no tax pledge,
they are giving aid and comfort to Grover Norquist, whose published intention is to “shrink the federal government to the point that it is small enough to drown in a bathtub.” Is this, in principle, sufficiently different from giving aid and comfort to any other non-government organization whose intention is to weaken or destroy the United States government, even Al Qaeda? True, Norquist does not advocate violent means, but his practices have wreaked violent harm to many. A great many Norquist-pledging Tea Party state politicians have been slashing spending on health, education, and unemployment. People have died because they no longer could pay for the treatments they desperately needed. That may not be change by violent means, but it is change that does violence.
One could even question whether, in signing the No-Net-Tax-Increase-Pledge, elected official are bordering on committing an act of treason?
Grover Norquist is on the Way Out
"Norquist says that members sometimes “get tripped up by hypothetical questions,” and the meeting should help clarify some of the confusion...“So part of it will be how to answer questions people might get on taxes and the pledge. Then we want to answer questions on how the pledge will play out in tax reform as Ways and Means is getting ready to do tax reform next year.”"
So there you have it. Grover Norquist is going to teach our elected politicians on how to answer embarrassing questions about the stupid pledge that they made to Grover Norquist. Wow, what does Grover Norquist have over these Representatives and Senators?
These spineless republicans live in fear of Grover, WHY?
Jeff Flake Promises Not To Sign Tax Pledge He Already Signed
Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican congressman running for U.S. Senate, said Wednesday he had not and would not sign the no-tax pledge from Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, even though the group says he already signed.
"The only pledge I'd sign is a pledge to sign no more pledges," Flake said at a debate with Democrat Richard Carmona and Libertarian Marc Victor. "We've got to ensure that we go back and represent our constituents in a way -- I believe in limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility. I don't want higher taxes.
But no more pledges."
Flake is listed as one of the 279 signers of the pledge against new taxes on the website of Americans for Tax Reform. The pledge is a promise to voters to "ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
But it often gets in the way of legislation, because any attempt to raise revenue can be interpreted as a tax increase -- putting pledge-signers in the awkward position of either thwarting debt-reduction efforts or breaking their word.
The debate showed an effort to shift toward the center for both Flake and Carmona. Flake emphasized his willingness to work with both parties, even though his record shows him consistently voting with his party. He said he is not a member of the Tea Party, although he is proud to have the conservative group's support.
Flake said he worked with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) on immigration issues, but offered no legislation on the subject. Flake voted against the Dream Act, which would provide legal status to some undocumented young people, but said he supports a "version" of the Dream Act that would give states the option of charging in-state tuition prices to undocumented immigrants instead of out-of-state tuition. He is struggling with Arizona Latino voters, who by and large support immigration reform.
Carmona, meanwhile, emphasized his long history as an independent, saying he became a Democrat for this election because the Republican Party has gone so far right. He said he hopes to go bring change to the Senate.
Carmona said he would have voted against Obamacare as the law stands now, and would have instead encouraged Congress and the president to make adjustments. Republicans quickly pointed out that the statement contradicts previous statements that he would have supported health care reform, although he did say earlier that he would have wanted changes. Carmona said he stands behind the principle of health care for all, but does not view single-payer health care system as workable.
"The way it is, if the president and Congress was not willing to change it, I wouldn't have voted for it as is," Carmona said. "And the reason is I believe that it's unsustainable in the long run. ... But I'm fully behind the aspiration to make sure that every American has access to a basic set of health care benefits."
Grover Norquist Pledge Against Taxes Attracts Fewer Republican Candidates
Rep. Scott Rigell's (R-Va.) message for up-and-coming Republicans would have been considered political heresy just two years ago: You don't have to bow to Grover Norquist to win.
"My advice and counsel to 'Young Guns' would be to not sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge," the Virginia Republican told The Huffington Post. The anti-tax oath authored by conservative activist Norquist had, until recently, been signed by almost every Republican in Congress or aspirant.
This election season is different. Rigell is one of dozens of GOP challengers and incumbents who have declined, so far, to take the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Their objections range from personal to political. But underneath is the belief that being locked into a pledge to never support new revenues in a debt-reduction deal
is unpalatable.
Just 45 of 83 of the Republican National Congressional Committee's current crop of so-called Young Guns have signed the no-tax pledge this election season, according to a Huffington Post analysis of pledge signatures.
During the 2010 midterm elections, 81 of 92 of that Young Guns group signed the pledge. The Young Guns program was founded by GOP leaders to promote and finance up-and-coming congressional candidates.
The sentiment hasn't been shared across the party's ranks. As Norquist's group has pointed out, nearly 100 more politicians today -- candidates and incumbents -- have signed the pledge than two years ago. That's in part because more Republicans are in office. Moreover, campaign pressures can force a candidate's hand. Someone declining to sign the pledge today may think differently by November.
"You are interested in oranges. We are interested in apples," said John Kartch, a spokesman for Norquist's group. A total of 539 incumbent lawmakers and candidates have signed the pledge, Kartch said. That's more than the number of seats in Congress, as some races feature several candidates who all are pledge-takers. Since the Republican Party controls a healthy majority in the House, there is little risk that, come January 2013, there might be a rebellion on the group's pet issue.
"So many of the potentially GOP districts have already been won that any collection of ‘strong’ GOP candidates in 2012 would be less likely to win than the same group measured in 2010," Kartch said.
The eagerness of Rigell and others to downplay or ignore the pledge would have been anathema just two years ago.
Last month, Norquist hosted what he called an "educational meeting" on the Capitol Hill to remind incumbent lawmakers of their commitment to never vote for a tax increase. The Norquist huddle reportedly attracted 20 members of Congress, or 7 percent of the 279 federal legislators who have signed the pledge. Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina walked out early. (Mulvaney’s spokesman said the lawmaker is “already familiar with” the pledge and didn’t need a refresher course).
Although Norquist hasn't shared the names of attendees, Rigell was not there.
The Virginia Republican, who was given Young Gun status in May 2010, yanked his signature from the anti-tax pledge in January, saying he objects to the pledge's prohibition against eliminating corporate loopholes or government subsidies unless the change in the tax code is revenue-neutral.
"I have a voting record," Rigell said. "I've voted a thousand times. If they want to know what Scott Rigell's about, they can go to Open Congress or whatever."
Rigell said he's "certain" the Taxpayer Protection Pledge won't help correct the government's long-term fiscal problems. He told voters about his position five months before the primary, ignoring advisers' pleas to wait until he had secured the GOP nomination.
"If they want me with my convictions to represent them, that's wonderful. I'd be honored," Rigell said. "If they know I'm repudiating and distancing myself from the ATR pledge, and in their wisdom, if they want someone else to represent them, they need to have that opportunity."
Rigell is not the only GOP candidate who has publicly expressed concerns over the anti-tax pledge. Young Gun Richard Tisei’s (R-Mass.) campaign circulated a Salem News article last month declaring that the candidate is "bucking the trend" and will be "one of the lone dissidents" if elected to Congress.
Tisei, running against Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), said he has known Norquist since his college days, when Tisei was the chairman of College Republicans at American University and Norquist was the executive director of the national organization. Still, the former Massachusetts state senator insisted he wants to avoid getting "tied up in knots" if he's elected.
"I'm not signing any pledges," Tisei told The Huffington Post last week. "I'm just promising to use my best judgment as a congressman. And I think that's the problem in Washington right now. You have both Democrats and Republicans that are inflexible on certain issues."
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) also takes issue with the pledge's rigidity. The Young Gun easily won an April primary to replace retiring Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) in which six opponents signed the pledge.
"To me, pledges, can be gimmicks," Perry told the York Dispatch in April. "It is easy to candidates to sign pledges and make promises. The proof is in my record."
Other Young Guns are still making up their minds. Businessman Joe Coors, who is trying to unseat Rep. Ed Perlmutter, the Democratic incumbent in Colorado's 7th Congressional District, has not yet taken the Norquist oath. Coors promised to support and co-sponsor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting
congressional terms. His signature is also on the Death Tax Repeal Pledge, which simply states a candidate "will support the
permanent repeal of the federal estate and gift taxes."
In a statement, Coors spokeswoman Michelle Yi said the campaign is reviewing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to determine whether it "helps keep the conversation on how to get the economy back on track."
Despite the headline-grabbing defections, one Young Gun said she sees no reason to withhold her signature, even though she has, in the past, backed tax hikes.
In one of the year's most closely watched legislative races, former Saratoga Springs, Utah, Mayor Mia Love aims to become the first black Republican woman in Congress. In a statement provided by her campaign, the Young Gun said would not speculate why fellow Republican office-seekers have not signed the pledge.
Love is no stranger to the dreaded T-word. She has drawn the wrath of local Tea Party groups for a 116 percent property tax increase she approved while mayor.
"As for myself, I signed the pledge for the very simple reason that I firmly believe the federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem," Love said in the statement. "As our national economy continues to struggle, we do not need further tax increases."
UPDATE: 10:15 a.m. -- Coors announced Thursday that he will not be signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, delivering a letter to Norquist explaining his rationale.
"In the battle we find ourselves in as a nation, I don't want to be viewed as an ideologue. That's not who I am," Coors wrote in the letter, which was provided to The Huffington Post by Yi.
Coors also wrote Norquist that House Republicans should not oppose tax increases because they have signed the pledge; they should oppose tax increases because they "harm the overall health of the economy."
Local News From the 6th District
Amherst Virginia Headlines
Lynchburg Headlines
Amherst County Virginia Democratic News
Register and Vote
ACVDN
