The video is intense, considering the forum.
The video raises innumerable issues.
Forum rules have been modified since the Nixon years to prevent enlightening questions. It has had a dampening and even chilling effect on what is termed free speech and democratic debate. Many people believe that the only way to get points raised is via drawing attention through what is called civil disobedience. Of course, the question arises: Under a democracy, the government is only legitimate when it is by the consent of the governed, so just who has ultimate civil authority and who is truly being disobedient? According to the U.S. Constitution, all un-enumerated powers still rest in the people. Were the police acting in accordance with both the spirit and letter of the Constitution—preserving it?
The video also raises the issue of excessive force and police brutality. The reason the police use such force is for its future deterrent effect. If people can be sufficiently intimidated and made to fear the police, their control is greater. However, it is not good for community relations. If they had hustled the youth out (if he insisted upon monopolizing the forum) and let him go, it would have been better (not perfect, but better). Tasers are sadistic. They do not serve to defuse a situation.
The young man (Andrew Meyer, 21, a student in the College of Journalism and Communications) who was tased and arrested used profanity. This does not help his cause, although some young people find it fashionable and something with which they can identify. His infractions pale though next to how the situation was butchered by the authorities.
In addition to the issues above, the young man did raise important points. There was election rigging of the 2004 U.S. presidential election. John Kerry did win the election. George W. Bush was not elected fairly and squarely. Enough voters illegally and systematically were disenfranchised under the criminal conspiracy to have secured the election for Kerry.
An important question though concerns the premature election concession by Kerry, especially in light of the immediately preceding presidential election that was given to George W. Bush by Republican appointed Supreme Court justices, against all proper legal procedures.
Coupled with no impeachment hearings against George W. Bush for all of his blatant lies and cover-ups, war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the Bill of Rights, and the rest, along with the fact that both Bush and Kerry were/are members of the secret society at Yale known as Skull and Bones, and the inquisitive young man questions whether the conspiracy crosses party lines.
Many people believe that there is little to no difference between the ruling elite at the top of each party. They believe that the two-party system is just a way for the one party to rule under the guise of diversity of choice. They believe, as does the Real Liberal Christian Church, that the wealthy as a class/families rule (plutocracy; oligarchy) and choose the winners behind closed doors and that, therefore, the democracy is truly just ostensible.
Joseph Goebbels was the propaganda minister for Nazi Germany, which was an amazing propaganda machine but nothing compare to America's, which has been the best (worst in the divine sense) in history. Goebbels said, "What you want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity." The same applies to the whole political system.
Another top Nazi, Hermann Goering (also: Hermann Göring), said, "...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
It is unfortunate that the status quo is such that people feel compelled to extreme boldness in order for legitimate questions to be put before the people and leaders. Jesus faced the same situation. His Apostles too were told (ordered) to stop preaching Jesus's message. Of all of them, apparently only John wasn't martyred. Think about it. The whole system is corrupt, upside down, and inside out. That's why Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers. You can too by joining the Real Christian Commons Project. See The Plan and What an Article in the Wikipedia Covering the Real Liberal Christian Church Might Look Like for starters.
Many people seem to care about what happened to this young man: Some pro, some con, some mixed, some just reporting:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)