Recently declassified documents reveal that in 1950, Hoover, the former FBI Director, wanted authorization to lock up some 12,000 people Hoover wanted the government to consider basically treasonous. The plan hearkens back to the Palmer Raids he directed in 1919-1921 against radical leftists (like Jesus) in the United States. People were labeled as violent anarchists. Most of them were immigrants. The truth is that there were militants who did commit violence; however, many innocents were rounded up as well. The militancy of some was used as an excuse to purge the country of egalitarianism, to throw the fear into those who would stand up for even real Christian principles.
In 1950, Hoover planned to suspend the right of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He wanted his plan to extend to territory "legally" occupied by U.S. troops.
He wanted hearings to "not be bound by the rules of evidence."
Here's in-depth coverage: "FBI's Hoover Planned Mass U.S. Jailings: Report." The New York Times. December 22, 2007.
The same mindset of Hoover back in 1950 is permeating the neocons today only worse. At least Hoover wanted to limit things to "legally" occupied territories. The neocons today don't care that the Iraq War and U.S. occupation are illegal under the mundane international law to which the U.S. is signatory and bound under its own Constitution.
The most important thing to observe is what didn't happen. There was Hoover wanting to go after 12,000 he fingered as dangerous. However, he didn't get his way and the 12,000 didn't go about committing terrorists acts.
It must be stated that in light of the recent revelations about false-flag planning and operations carried out by the official U.S. government against itself and others, there is no telling, without serious historical investigation, the degree to which violence before the Palmer Raids was done via false-flag operations. We all know that Hoover had his agents infiltrate, and instigate violence within, groups he hated, including for racist reasons. His agents worked to divide groups and to turn them against each other. In fact, he incited violence against the citizenry of the United States, in whom the government rests. Therefore, it was Hoover who was treasonous. He worked to overthrow peaceful representative democracy by preventing people from duly organizing politically. In other words, he was a repressive jackboot on the necks of the poor whose faces he ground in the dirt.
Thanks tofor providing a full copy of the article on The New York Times (cited above).
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)