The United States has a written Constitution that is supposed to be the highest law of the land. It contains the Bill of Rights. The range of protections has always been subject to interpretation; however, it has generally been at least the public position of politicians, with the exception of the most reactionary, that when governmental overreach is exposed, quick and decisive actions must be taken to rectify the situation. Such is no longer the case.
It is commonly understood that the government of the United States and without providing sufficient evidence to the citizenry, has engaged in wholesale violations of the Bill of Rights.
Decades ago when it became known that the government had been doing that, the government came under scrutiny under Congressional investigations, the most famous of which is called the Church Committee. The single most important thing to come out of the hearings and resulting legislation was the decoupling of foreign and domestic intelligence and enforcement.
Now we had 9/11, which regardless of what the bought and paid for talking heads on Fox and elsewhere have to say to the contrary, had large elements of a false-flag operation. Those who wanted to get the U.S. back into full-swing military-Empire building arranged for 9/11 to happen — to provoke it, facilitate it, and allow it. Then they blamed 9/11 on the results of the Church Committee measures to end domestic spying, etc., without real cause. This was done to allow for greater and greater overt consolidation of wealth, power, and control under the economic powers known as the plutocrats — the members of the wealthy class that ultimately controls all of the world's governments even against the wills of the citizens of the several nation-states of the world.
The plutocrats control the money. They monopolize the creation of currency. They are the world bankers. All corporations of the world are beholden to them. Of the 100 largest known economies in the world, more than half are public corporations. The reason I say known is because there are private economies that are actually larger. They are the umbrella organizations sitting above what is both public and private. They include all of the illegal drug, weapon, and sex marketing and the attendant money laundering for the same. The world bankers see all of the cash flow and take their huge cut.
Part of the results of the 9/11 false-flag operation are the 72 some Regional Fusion Centers in the United States where foreign intelligence (CIA, State Department), military (DIA, NSA, Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office), federal domestic (DHS, DOJ, FBI, ICE, FEMA, Treasury Department, Transportation Safety Administration, DEA, Energy), state (often highway patrols), tribal, county (often Sheriffs), municipal (police), and NGO's and corporate entities (of all sorts that have a stake in the Military-Industrial Complex; defense contractors; commercial databank companies) all share information and enforcement capabilities. This has resulted in abuse and is ripe for greater civil liberties and privacy abuses. The National Security Council and DNI are over it all. These entities work with foreign national and international organizations as well.
People can end up misidentified by the National Counterterrorism Center in its TIDE database (Terrorist Identities Datamark Environment). These concern "watch lists" where people have no way of knowing they are on the list much less any method to be removed. So-called "National Security" issues block people without adequate security clearance from even discussing the reasons for anyone being placed on or maintained on any such list. In addition, very often, those in charge high up in the various organizations do not have a good feel for where lines should be drawn and how fixed those should be concerning mundane privacy and civil liberties. There is the position of. Of course, the government is rife with putting up fronts.
The problem most people have is with being torn between wishful thinking on one hand and wanting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms on the other.
Many people fall for the idea that abusing people is necessary for national safety and security. The idea that abusing people is necessary is dumb-down. Rather than working to convince everyone to stop all abuse, the abusers who are most often the creation of earlier abuse done to them, are conditioned not to trust that others can change. They find change difficult, so they assign the same difficulty to others. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. They doom themselves to unenlightenment.
Only through dialogue and education can human beings best arrive at non-violent solutions. Unfortunately, people refuse to work to break the grip of the conditioning of abuse.
Humanity has individuals who have powerful brains on certain levels, but very often, nearly always in fact, those minds get way off the right track. They get off the track because they have been abused off the track. They then act out the same abuse on others. Only by openly, honestly, and directly talking about these things with an eye to removing the cyclical thinking can we all get on the right path.
This requires a commitment to logic. I don't mean "academic" logic. I mean real logic where people will agree to accept what is truly right. Far too many people refuse to accept obvious truths. They have had that error conditioned into them and haven't overcome. Well, they haven't been asked. It hasn't become a world movement yet. It needs to.
Sharing information is fine. The problem with the Fusion Centers is that they are based upon faulty premises to begin with. They are built up layer upon layer of false premises. They become the tools of rogues to rein in rogues. The Empire is a rogue. The minions are dupes at best.
The only way to fix what is wrong with the world is by revisiting first premises. People show up to the discussion dragging their egos where they want to come out on top for competitive reasons and not for what is truly best.
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)