Ted Rall wrote a column, "An Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove," Uexpress, January 1, 2008, about J. Edgar Hoover's 1950 list of people Hoover wanted to throw into concentration camps. Rall made the same point I did earlier on December 28, 2007, about how despite Hoover failing to get his way, there were no acts of sabotage. Ted also points out the following about the Reagan years and now George W. Bush.
During the 1960s and 1970s the CIA—in violation of its charter, which limits the agency to acting overseas—cooperated with local police departments across the country to compile a list of 300,000 Americans and organizations suspected of opposing the Vietnam War.
On April 6, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive No. 52. Reagan targeted 400,000 people for arrest and confinement at concentration camps in mothballed Army bases. The National Security Council's "secret government within a government," as Congressional investigators later described it, planned to cancel the 1984 presidential election so Reagan could remain in office indefinitely.
"Lt. Col. Oliver North, for example, helped draw up a controversial plan to suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad," The Miami Herald reported on July 5, 1987.
People who hate The People never sleep. In 2006 Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which overturns the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibited the use of combat troops on the soil of the United States. For the first time in 128 years, the president can declare martial law in case of a hurricane, riot or terrorist attack. In May 2007 Bush attached a National Security Presidential and Homeland Directive to the National Defense Authorization Act. In case of a "national emergency"—the president could declare it without consulting anyone—he could suspend the Constitution and appoint an unelected provisional government under a "national continuity coordinator."
That's the same Ronald Reagan who said that if the college students in the 1960's didn't stop occupying college administration offices and doing other protesting, he, Reagan advocated a "blood bath." He's also the one who authorized the illegal Iran-Contra deals.
The important thing to realize here is that this is all about the rich staying on top. FDR's New Deal was, and remains, despised by the rich even though it spared them from a violent revolution by co-opting so many socialist ideas and balancing them via corporatism in the form of unions, etc., against laissez faire capitalism. The Welfare State appeased the "left." Now it has been nearly dismantled, and the people are beginning to be hurt again in much the same way that resulted in the crash of 1929 and Great Depression that ran to WWII. "Happy Days" were not here again. It was "Brother Can You Spare a Dime." That's were the ultra-greedy have taken things again.
This time, the people need to throw off the whole system so as not to be co-opted, duped, and set up for another long string of deliberate booms and busts where so many of the rich make out as the bandits they are.
I don't agree that the President couldn't declare martial law under the mundane law before Bush signed his directive. Abraham Lincoln obviously used the military domestically in a huge way. He's lauded by the Federalists who were so cozy with, and under the wings of, the Bankers in Europe. Lincoln didn't trust those bankers as far as he could throw them. The people who hate Lincoln though are those for localism. They like power decentralized as much as possible, because then bigger powers don't exist to stop them from lording it over their local area, such as on the county level or even town level. Choose your tyranny. Federal, Global, or local neighborhood, it's all the same. Only Jesus's yoke is light.
Read about the Christian Commons Project™ as the beginnings of the proper alternative to the current evil system.
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)