Title: "In Memory 9-11 and Katrina."
U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger has ruled that fencing in protesters at the Democratic National Convention will be lawful. She said that the right to protest must be balanced against security needs. She doesn't comprehend the U.S. Constitution. To put protesters into a fenced zone does a number of illegal things that no amount of security concerns can outweigh.
First of all, it makes them guilty before proven innocent. There is no reason to suspect any individuals in particular; otherwise, law-enforcement could easily obtain an injunction against each individual suspect barring each from the whole area. This is a blanket, collective punishment of the innocent.
Second, the right of the people peaceably to assemble shall not be infringed. That's expressly guaranteed in the Constitution. Sure, interpretation includes balancing rights. They all must be weighed though. They all must be prioritized. The presumption of innocence (individual innocence) comes first before security. This is so abuses by the state won't occur. This is so there won't be second-class citizenship, second-class citizenship this completely wrong-headed ruling seeks to chisel in granite. This means that unless things turn violent or non-peaceful (including too loud or truly out-of-order so as to be ultimately harmful to the general welfare) at the instigation of the protesters and not outside agitators sent in to cause violence, then law enforcement has no right to fence off anyone.
Third, fencing people off has the effect of making them seem as animals. It renders them as less fit to mingle with others. They are treated as mindless cattle. It sends a clear message designed to demean protest. All protesters are rendered second-class citizens. This ruling is designed to uphold policies and practices designed to weaken the general welfare. It is designed for the sakes of the self-authorized ruling elite who don't want to hear the protesters and surely don't want those protesters sharing the limelight of mass media with them, the self-centered elite. They don't want the views of the protesters to be shown in a light equal to their own. They want things unequal. They want to send the psychological signal that they can fence anyone off who doesn't hold with their fascist, police-state views. It keeps many from joining in speaking in solidarity with the views of the dissenters, right or wrong, often right. They want to avoid redressing grievances.
The fenced in areas are being termed "free speech zones." That renders everything outside such tiny zones, deliberately placed far away from the center of things, as one huge anti-free speech zone. That is not contemplated under the Constitution.
For these and other reasons, U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger has clearly ruled incorrectly. The ruling is clearly fascistic.
The whole idea of protest zones was a terrible idea. Whoever thought them up was clearly an enemy of free speech. It was no decent compromise.
For decades now, fascistic forces have been busily chipping away at anti-fascism. From the end of WWII for approximately 30 years, anti-fascists had made some fairly decent strides; however, beginning with the Reagan era of the 1980s, those strides have been severely rolled back with nightmarish results that we've all seen with Abu Ghraib, renditions, secret prisons (dungeons really), the death of habeas corpus, the death of due process, laissez faire capitalism inflicted upon the poorest of the poor while the rich get socialistic bailouts for their designed economic-sector crashes, lies for war murdering hundreds of thousands and where the liars go unaccountable (scot-free), domestic dragnet spying, and on and on.
This trend comes on the heels of all the abuses in the Middle East going back through the era of the British Empire, Vietnam, and Central America and elsewhere that have caused much of the rest of the world to hate the American Empire with cause. It has stimulated terrorism. The laws and imperial and colonial actions of the U.S. have stimulated terrorism by terrorism.
This is no call to return to the late 1960s and early 1970s. The system then was fatally broken, as it still is now.
The U.S. Constitution is a psychological gimmick. Separation of powers and co-equal branches of government as expressed by the U.S. Constitution are gimmicks that insure what you've been witnessing. They are coercive measures rather than a call for the perfection that is the New Commandment and all that the exemplary life of Jesus implies.
The U.S. Constitution attempts to guarantee the ruling class's position in perpetuity. However, that ruling class has attained its position via immoral, unethical, and frankly illegal means from the beginning. They have literally stolen the inheritance of all. You see the starvation in the world as a direct result of the spirit of those thieves.
The U.S. Constitution is far from the last, best form of government. It's really quite pathetic. It aims very low. It isn't bright. Dim and dulls minds conceived it. Duller minds are duped by it. Human nature is capable of perfection else Jesus Christ would not have done what he did. Stop calling each other to fall. Call each other to rise and nothing but. Then the root cause for everything you're complaining about will end up ceasing to exist.
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)