A few Bible Quotes from the Godless, Atheist Democratic National Convention

"I don't know what party these men and women belong to. I don't know if they'll vote for me. But I know that their spirit defines us. They remind me, in the words of Scripture, that ours is a 'future filled with hope.' And if you share that faith with me -- if you share that hope with me -- I ask you tonight for your vote." -- President Barack Obama, accepting the party's nomination, Democratic National Convention, Sept. 6, 2012

"Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport. It summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps. In Matthew, chapter 6, verse 21, the scriptures teach us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. My friends, any man who aspires to be our president should keep both his treasure and his heart in the United States of America." -- Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Democratic National Convention, Sept. 4, 2012

"We should not run from the term Obamacare. I am glad Obama cares. Because Obama cares, children born with diabetes can no longer be denied coverage. People with catastrophic illnesses can no longer be dropped from coverage when they get sick. Families will no longer have their benefits capped. Romans 13, verse 12: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light." Let us go from this place, lighting candles all across this great country, and re-elect President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden so they can continue moving our country forward into the light." -- Rep. James Clyburn, Democratic National Convention, Sept. 6, 2012

"I grew up in a Methodist church and taught Sunday school, and one of my favorite passages of Scripture is, "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40. The passage teaches about God in each of us, that we are bound to each other and we are called to act, not to sit, not to wait, but to act - all of us together." -- Elizabeth Warren, Democratic National Convention, Sept. 5, 2012

The RNC Gets it Wrong

Our friend TJ Williams (student at Union Seminary, member of Riverside Church) asked me to pass this on to you. His personal reflections on the Republican National Convention. 

Stan

As my partner Brad and I watched CNN Tuesday night, we sat in awe as we viewed at a split screen with two hurricanes — one hitting Baton Rouge, La., and Mississippi and the other coming from Tampa, Fla., in the form of voter suppression, ideological racism, classism, social and spiritual homophobia.

As an African-American, I am more than offended at the notion that by selecting people like Arthur Davis of Virginia as a speaker that he can persuade African- Americans to vote for Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney represents an oppressive ideological system of values that is not about freedom and fairness, but is about distortions and protecting the 1 percent of society. Davis’s message is only about an attempt to create collective amnesia.

The desperation of the Republican Party is shown by masking its message in even more lies through even more voices — voices like that of Gov. Nikki Haley and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who really must believe that the majority of Americans are dumb enough to believe the lies about President Obama’s record. Lies like the phrase the Republican Party used for the majority of Tuesday’s Republican convention. The phrase they used is “We Built It,” a phrase that President Obama used that was taken out of context. This phrase “we built it,” is where the president was pointing out that many businesses have always depended on some services from government. However, Mr. Romney has twisted it to mean that the president said all companies are created by government. It is a shame that they believe that people would be such sheep of collective manipulation.

The Republican Party always goes back to the Founding Fathers that many in America cannot identify with, such as African Americans and Native Americans. Descendants of both of these cultures were violently treated by early American settlers. Is this what they mean when they say that they want to go back to a time of the Founding Fathers —a time of slavery, rapes and murder over appropriation of land where populations ran free and where communities were villages. The phrase “back to the Founding fathers” conjured up images that are not like that of the 95 percent of the Republican Party has idealized.

Gov. Chris Christie praised his efforts to block jobs for tenured teachers. “We took on the teachers union by ending jobs for life regardless of performance.” This tough talk coming from Christie is about union busting and ruining the systems put in place to protect workers in terms of health care, fair and livable wages. He went on to boast of attacking Medicare the only tool for seniors and their families to have dignity in providing healthcare and skilled nursing and even palliative care. His quote on this was “telling our seniors the truth about our over burdened entitlements.” Gov. Christie, it is not an entitlement to protect and to offer services that people have worked for more than 75 years. Taking these services away is void of compassion and the Jesus that you claim you know.

As people of faith, Brad and I identify most with the Democratic Party of today because it cares about the America it seeks to serve and because it supports open voting of all people. This is imperative for the health of our democracy and for the values and freedoms for all.  We are not just saying this as a gay couple, but as Americans who are concerned about combating poverty, maintaining access to health care and education for all, and yes and end to Defense of Marriage Act.

Let me say this clearly: Voter suppression in this election is the agenda of the Republican Party because it is the only way the party can see itself winning the White House. We have seen this before in the election of George W. Bush. Rigging the election is nothing new with the Republican Party. This is not just un- American, but immoral to the God they always claim they serve.

Therefore, we call on all pastors and community leaders to be vigilant in assuring that the least of these who are at risk of being turned away at the polls is protected. If I were a pastor today, I would do everything possible so that this presidency can be protected and respected so we can collectively move forward as a nation.

Too many have died and bled on the bridge to Selma, Ala., for this election to be stolen by a few who have exchanged their white sheets with white shirts, colorful ties and Gucci suits. We are not telling clergy what to do, but we are merely asking clergy to speak truth for the sake of the least of these and the grandchildren of the least of these, and to protect the values that were implemented after the Founding Fathers.

Blessings

TJ Williams and Brad Hauger

Riverside Church First gay Couple to be legally married

T. J Williams MDIV Student at New York Theological Seminary

Tj.willaims@gmail.com

To support TJ and Brad continued work please go to this web site and

donate www.pilgrimagetoriverside.com

TJ is Available for speaking/preaching

Who Would Moses or Jesus Vote For?

by: Wes Howard-Brook  Republished from the Tikkun Daily Blog, April 6th, 2012

One of the most hostility-producing actions I’ve taken in brecent years was to raise questions among my fellow faculty about the primacy of voting for federal offices. One colleague had proposed a “get out the vote” drive among students, to which I replied, “Maybe we should be inviting them to ask, ‘is voting a civic duty or a corporate scam?’” The rolling eyes, shaking heads, and downright anger took even a seasoned veteran such as myself by surprise.

We can question the reality of God, the importance of Jesus, and the integrity of religious institutions, but dare at your own risk to challenge the civic sacrament! But I do dare to challenge it, both in the classroom and here. Would Moses have us vote for a “kinder, gentler” pharaoh, or Jesus for a better emperor?

We all know that our federal system has been taken captive by corporations and the 1%. I need not lay out examples of the systemic control that the wealthy exercise over our national politicians and regulatory agencies. As a young Senate counsel 30 years ago, I saw up close the reality of the single, over-arching rule of national government: whoever has the most money wins.

Countless analysts, such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and Chris Hedges, have documented the course of our imperial, corporate government brazenly serving the interests of the few at the expense of the many. What we see now is not different from the past, except in its open contempt for the real needs of ordinary people for health care, meaningful work, and a healthy planet for our children’s children.

This can lead some to cynicism that gives up not only on politics but on the possibility of real change for justice and peace. For me, though, it has been clarifying. I no longer put any hope in a system that was founded by and for the 1% and has always acted on their behalf. Rather, I put all my hope in God’s vision of an alternative social order. The covenant at Sinai called an enslaved people out of empire to live a radically different way in deep communion with the Creator and one another. Similarly, Jesus called his disciples not to reform the empire but to abandon it, and live instead in local community where all is shared in common, empowered by the presence of embodied Love.

Things can be different at the local level, as activist Paul Cienfuegos has shown. Corporations can’t control each local town council, and citizens can more effectively organize resistance when the rich seek to exert their power. But at the national level, this is virtually impossible.

I urge us to consider, in the face of the banal predictability of the national election campaigning, to discern whether voting is an expression of civic duty or is a form of collaboration with a corporate scam. Our future and the future of our planet are at stake.

The Republican Budget is an Immoral Document

Jim Wallis, founder and editor of Sojourners magazine and  the Washington, D.C.-based Christian community of the same name.

Reprinted from:

Editor's Note: The following remarks were given on Capitol Hill on Aug. 1 as part of a call from faith leaders across the religious spectrum urging Congress to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit for low- and moderate-income Americans. 

A budget is a moral document. That phrase was coined by the faith community and has become a refrain in the ongoing debates over deficits and budgets. But in this week’s House vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts, we see one more example of the priorities and principles of the broader GOP budget and how they apply to the rich and to the poor. Because of this, we must conclude that the Republican budget is an immoral document — in the way it treats the poor. I certainly don’t believe that all our Republican lawmakers came to Washington to hurt poor people, but it’s time for some of them to challenge the dominant forces in their party and face the consequences of such indefensible choices.

We have a genuine hope for a long term bipartisan solution and, in particular, a moral non-partisan commitment to protect the poor and vulnerable from being expendable in these fiscal debates. We should also say that Democratic budgets have not been models of fiscal responsibility and social justice either. But what the House budget is calling for is morally objectionable on religious and biblical grounds — and people of faith from all political stripes should say so. In particular, to roll back tax credits for the poor to help fund tax breaks for the rich is morally reprehensible, and the faith community has to speak out.

Here is what the debate reveals from the highest moral lens: the House GOP budget wants to extend tax cuts and credits for the wealthiest people of our society while cutting tax benefits for the poorest — including millions of low-income working families with children at risk. Proven and effective tax credits, which can lift families out of poverty, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which have historically had bipartisan support, are now being dramatically reduced. All the while, tax cuts for the wealthy are further expanded and the amount of money the richest can keep from their estate taxes continues to grow. This is an egregious contrast and a starkly immoral budget choice.

To reward the rich even more while actually punishing the poor is a direct offense to all of our religious traditions. For Catholic lawmakers, it is a fundamental violation of Catholic social teaching, and the Catholic bishops have said so. They called this budget choice “unwise” and “unjust.” Every Catholic lawmaker who votes for those misplaced priorities should be held accountable by their church. But that accountability can’t stop with Catholics.

The Bible confronts every Evangelical lawmaker with more than 2,000 verses that call us to defend the poor and vulnerable. If we say we believe the Bible, we simply can’t support policies that directly reward the rich and punish the poor: Christian lawmakers can’t keep going into their prayer breakfasts and leaving their Bibles at the door.

The Senate Democrats should be thanked for blocking these cuts and protecting tax credits for low-income families last week. But, to be honest, neither party has clearly and publically stated a fundamental principle that the poor and vulnerable should be protected. In these critically important deficit debates, that principle is crucial and must be central to policy decisions.

Reducing excessive deficits is a moral act, but also how we reduce them is a moral issue. It’s time for both parties to commit themselves to this principle: We will not reduce the deficit in ways that increase poverty and economic inequality. This is the fundamental principle of the Circle of Protection, a broad table of more than 60 church leaders and organizations across the theological and political spectrum committed to protecting the poor and vulnerable in these crucial fiscal decisions. We will continue to press and pressure the leadership of both parties to uphold that principle. Our nation has achieved bipartisan agreement to that principle in past deficit reduction, and we must do it again. This is a moral and religious imperative that we should hold all lawmakers to. And the Circle of Protection will do that on both sides of the aisle.

In all of our decisions, the poor and vulnerable — the ones Jesus called “the least of these” — should be protected, especially by people of faith, regardless of their party affiliations and political philosophies. It’s time to cut through all the political clutter, ideology, and self-interest. The Christian leaders of the Circle of Protection feel called by God in saying this to our political leaders: It’s time to do the right thing and protect the poor.

JP Morgan's Losses: "No Big Deal"

Wall Street and its Congressional and Fox news allies continue to play down the trading losses of JP Morgan Chase for gambling wildly on bad credit derivatives in May, as though they were quite small and normal, and should not be a reason for enforcing the regulation laws passed two years ago. Larry Fink, of Blackrock is only the most recent person to come to their defense saying on CNBC’s “Squack Box” on Thursday that the loss, which he said was only $2 billion, was “no big thing.”

However, by the time he said that, the losses had already risen to $5 billion and he knew that. Also, as soon as the losses came out, JP Morgan’s stock price also fell by around another #30 billion. So, all tolled, the loss of the bad and foolish and risky gambling action cost them between $30 to 35 billion. And surely someone in the very the smart people at JPM must have known that if they lose $5 billion, they will lose even more than that in investor confidence. Surely they knew that.

JP Morgan’s profits last year were in the neighborhood of $90 billion, so the tiny, no big deal loss was one third of their income. That is a VERY big deal. 

May 13, 2012, 1:11 PM

Eurodämmerung

Paul Krugman

Some of us have been talking it over, and here’s what we think the end game looks like:

1. Greek euro exit, very possibly next month.

2. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany.

3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals.

3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing.

4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or:

4b. End of the euro.

And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out.

What to Do in the Absence of a Real Republican Party

Speaking as a one-time proud moderate Republican I really appreciated Brad Delong's recent rant about what to do about this new, fairly insane, national thing that calls itself the "Republican Party." He had just come back from a talk by Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, authors of an excellent book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. Before the section I quote below, he had just said that, while he had asked a bunch of questions, but this one was one that he should have asked, but didn't think of until later on.


"Look. You two are expecting normal politics to rein in a Republican Party gone bonkers extreme. But it will not work. The press corps will continue to say "he said, she said, yadda yadda yadda" either because they are gutless cowards or because they are bought. In a world of low-information voters, the bonkers extremism and sheer total meanness of the Republican Party will not get through. The only way it could get through would be if moderate Republican barons were to announce that they had had enough and were crossing t'he aisle, and if they did so in a way that they brought their affinities with them. But I don't see Brent Scowcroft doing that, I don't see Colin Powell doing that, I don't see Greg Mankiw doing that, I don't see Marty Feldstein doing that, I don't see Gail Wilensky doing that, I don't see Bob Dole doing that, I don't see Jack Danforth doing that, I don't see Richard Lugar doing that--and I don't see you doing that, Mr. Ornstein. I don't see you calling for the defeat of every single Republican candidate this fall and every fall until the party comes back to reality.


"'And since all of you moderate Republicans are unwilling to take the only step that might fix the situation on your side, we have to take the only step open to us: We have to stop bringing a set of policy proposals and briefing papers to what the Republican Party has made a thermonuclear exchange. We have to oppose their noise, slime, and lie machine with a noise, disinfectant, and truth machine of our own--and at the same intensity.


"'That means you moderates need to pick a side and fasten your seat belts, rather than wringing your hands about how the Republicans are being so mean, and you wish they would be less so.'
"Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein, please give me an alternative strategy I can follow to help the non-insane Republicans recapture their party. Please give me an alternative to signing up with Kos [referring to fairly radical proposals from the Daily Kos]. And if you cannot give me an alternative, why are you two not signing up with Kos right now?


"The stakes, after all, are high."

Causes of the Deficit Part One: Medicare

Last year Medicare Part D subscribers spent sixty two billion dollars on prescription drugs. If those drugs had been purchased through the V.A. or through any other branch of the armed forces, they would have cost about thirty billion. That would have been an enormous saving for ordinary people and would have been one more notch in bringing down the ballooning deficit. Health care outlays by the Federal government are one of the largest contributors to the deficit. However, because of certain provisions built into the law, the Medicare Agency is not allowed to use the free market to bargain down prices for drugs. It is not allowed to purchase them from the very stable, very reputable companies in Canada. All that it is allowed to do is take the inflated prices offered by the big pharmaceutical companies and pay them. The military, Tricare, the Veterans Administration and many other government entities have the right to collectively negotiate drug prices for better rates, but Medicare does not.

The origin of this glitch goes back to when the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (the drug industry lobby known as “Big PhRMA”), was asked by Congressman Billy Tauzin to help him write the language for the act which established Medicare Part D, something that was at least lazy and possibly illegal. They did what they were told and produced a bill that many believe is far more favorable to the industry than to the Medicare subscribers. Following its passage, Tauzin was hired as the president of Phrma, at an annual salary of $2 million.

One wonders whether the Medicare Part D subscribers have the right to sue Phrma or Tauzin for something like the violation of their civil rights for blocking their ability to compete in a free and unfettered open market. 

Bruce Bartlett on the need for a stimulus

Bruce Bartlett, past chief economist for the Reagan and first Bush administrations, was a supporter of the stimulus package much to the chagrin of many of his conservative colleagues. In a recent talk (found here) he explains why.

Essentially it is because of parallels he found between the causes of the Great Depression and the Great Recession.  The critical parallel was the decline in money that preceded each crash. With the Depression, it was a decline in the money supply. But while that was not exactly the case today it was something similar, it was a decline in the velocity of money. That is, the decline in the amount and speed with which money turned over in the economy. In the first crash, the money dried up and people couldn’t sell things, so the economy imploded. In the second, the speed with which the money flushed around in the economy (the “velocity”) dried up, and it (more or less) had the same affect on the economy.

The basic equation of GDP is:  

Money supply times velocity equals the prices of goods (times quantity of goods)

(M x V = P) x Q

If velocity falls by ten percent, it has the same impact as if the money supply shrinks by ten percent.

The ratio of the money supply to GDP is normally about 1.9, that’s the velocity. But right now it’s about 1.7. And if you multiply the money supply by 1.9, GDP would be on and a half trillion dollars higher. So, what’s happening in the economy is (among other things and related to other factors) that there is not enough money flushing around in the economy, buying goods, and allowing retailers to buy products and hire workers, and wholesalers to increase products and hire workers, and manufacturers to create products, etc. down the economic chain. It’s the same process that Milton Friedman had actually described in his book decades ago, and the remedy is the same that we used (badly and haltingly) back during the Great Depression: when private spending collapses, you need to substitute public spending to get the ball rolling, to prime the pump, to stimulate growth. It can’t be just monetary policy. The federal reserve cannot by itself increase the quantity of liquidity in the economy. It needs something to pull the economy along to get people spending again to get the turnover, the velocity of money flowing.

He admits that the stimulus package was not well designed and could have been whole lot better, but it was a step in the right direction. When a building is burning, you have to act. If we had not had it, we would have had a disaster. To do nothing, as many politicians and a small handful of economists have proposed, would have been to drive us into a depression at least as deep as the Great Depression, and perhaps deeper. 

Please help Tikkun/NSP run the following ad in major American newspapers. No Mr.  Netanyahu, No President Obama: No War on Iran and No First Strike Some who have signed this ad believe that the best path for homeland security is through rejecting the old-fashioned “domination strategy” to get your way by exercising power against those whom we fear (whether that domination is military, economic boycotts, or cultural manipulation). Instead we believe that a “generosity strategy” in which you act with caring, compassion, genuine respect for differences, and even generosity (starting with a Global Marshall Plan as developed by Tikkun Magazine and the Network of Spiritual Progressives and introduced to Congress as House Res. 157 by Hon. Keith Ellison of Minneapolis) is the most effective way to achieve long-term safety (whether that be for Israel or for the US). Some of us believe that a first strike against an enemy state which has done nothing more than engage in bombastic and offensive speech is itself a war crime. Some of us oppose all wars. Some of us just oppose the war that may come out of a first strike by Israel against suspected sites where Iran might be developing nuclear capacities. Some of us believe that any further proliferation of nuclear weapons anywhere is unacceptably hazardous and that Asia with five of the world's nine nuclear weapons states -- Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel --- could witness a cascade of proliferation if there is not clear progress in fulfilling the promise to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons contained in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Some of us believe that the Iranian regime would be greatly strengthened should Israel attack Iranian nuclear facilities because millions of those who demonstrated in protest against the last phony election and who would love to see the mullahs replaced in a genuine democratic process would find themselves facing overwhelming nationalistic pressure to unite behind the mullahs against foreign aggression. Some of us believe that even a nuclear Iran--faced with the certainty that its first aggressive use of nuclear weapons would engender a massive retaliation sufficient to permanently destroy Persian/Iranian civilization,  most of the beauty and most of the people of Iran, and lead to the deaths of tens of millions of Muslims—would not dare take a first strike using nuclear weapons against Israel or the U.S.  Americans once perceived the Soviet Union to be equally evil and irrational and driven by a fundamentalist form of Marxism as many now see Iran—yet the Soviet Union, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons,  was  constrained by the possibility of mutually assured destruction, and this is how it would be with a nuclear armed Iran as well. The very same people who now call for support for an attack now were telling us years ago that only a war with the Soviet Union could stop the Soviets from making an aggressive war against us. They were wrong.  These same false prophets lied us into a war with Iraq to protect ourselves from non-existent nuclear threat form Iraq. Now they want a war with Iran. (Some of us are worried about a false flag incident in which agents of Israel or the U.S. intelligence or "homeland security" crowd might  pretend to be agents of Iran and then attack either an Israeli or American ship, plane or installation in order to provoke war--such as the "false flag" incident that got the US escalating the Vietnam War.) Some of us fear that electoral pressures may push you, President Obama, and many Democrats in Congress as well, to either overtly or covertly support an attack on Iran by Israel, even while knowing that such an attack is actually not in the best interests of the U.S., Israel, the Jewish people, or world peace. Please show some courage not only in public but also in what "private assurances" you give to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Some of us believe that Israel could actually work out peaceful relations with Iran and enhance its own and American security if Israel were to end the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, help the Palestinian people create an economically and politically viable state, take some generous steps to alleviate the humiliation and the suffering of Palestinian refugees,  and support Palestinian membership in the United Nations. Those steps, done with a spirit of open-hearted generosity toward the Palestinian people and toward the people of all the surrounding Muslim states, is far more likely than military strikes against Iran or endless assaults on Hamas to provide a safe and secure future for Israel. Similarly, if the US were to apologize for its role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and substituting for it the dictatorial regime, it would strengthen the hands of those in Iran who seek an overthrow of the even worse regime that now terrorizes the people of Iran.     None of us who sign this statement accept as legitimate the denial of human rights in Iran, the pretense of democracy, the oppression of Bahai, the denial of the Holocaust and the right of Iran to verbally threaten the existence of the State of Israel. Our opposition to a war does not come from support for the Iranian regime. The signers of this ad do not all agree on all the statements above. Whatever the diversity of our perspectives,  here’s what we do all agree upon: No war with Iran. No first strikes on Iran. We implore Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama to stand up firmly against the militarists (including the militarists in their own internalized consciousness) and join with us to find other non-coercive, creatively open-hearted ways to achieve a lasting peace and reconciliation between Israel, the U.S. and Iran. And we call upon our fellow citizens to send this ad to their Congressional representatives and to refuse to support for President of the US any candidate who calls for or supports first strikes against Iran or any other nation state. And we call upon all our fellow citizens to read the full version of the Global Marshall Plan at www.Tikkun.org/GMP Click HERE to see a draft of how this ad would look in the newspaper. *********************************************************************** If you'd like to help us run this ad, please make a donation! After you make your donation, you'll be given an opportunity to include your name as a supporter/signer of the ad (this is optional - your name will NOT be included unless you specifically want it to). Your Information Welcome back! For your convenience, we have filled out your form with the information you provided previously from postal code 02169. Click to see and manage your information. Not standuncan@post.harvard.edu? Please click here. Thank you!  Email* Employment Information If you are retired, please enter "retired" below. If you are not employed, please enter "none". Occupation * Employer * Donation Amount  $5000  $ 1000  $ 500  $ 300  $ 250  $ 180  $ 150  $ 100  $ 75  $ 50  $ 25  other $  Credit Card Information Card Type:    Visa  MasterCard  American Express    Discover    Please enter your card number with no spaces or dashes. Card Number: Expires:     01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  10  11  12       2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  Security Code (What's this?)  Legal Compliance I confirm that the following statement is true and accurate: * I have read and accept the Democracy EngineTerms of Service and Privacy Policy. Please click the submit button only once. If you can't make a donation but would still like to add your name to the ad (room permitting),click here. We'll include your name on our web site and if room permits on the printed ad. If you prefer NOT to make a donation online, please send a check to: Tikkun/NSP 2342 Shattuck Ave, #1200, Berkeley, CA. 94704 Please note NO WAR AD on your check. If you prefer to call us with your credit card information, please call 510-644-1200 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Pacific time. If you live outside the United States and are having difficulty using your credit card to make a donation, please click here to make your donation via our PayPal payment processor. Copyright © 2010 Network of Spiritual Progressives and Tikkun Magazine 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200 - Berkeley, CA 94704 --- Phone 510-644-1200 - Fax 510-644-1255<