Go watch the video at Infowars.com.
The connection was very slow when I accessed it. It may have been due to the site showing up so much on account of the Obama Joker posters being put up everywhere (marketing strategy by Alex Jones and his crew) and getting much more traffic on account of it, or it may be some denial of service attacks, or both.
Anyway, both sides of this issue are pushing hard and wrong. The fellow in the video with his face covered, wearing dark sunglasses and with his voice disguised (although apparently not throughout) say that his guns are legal, not fully automatic, purchased apparently where he had to go through a background check and that he has not threatened anyone and was up and running before Barack Obama was elected, suggesting that Obama's being half Black has nothing to do with his concerns. He's calling for people to buy guns. He's calling himself Pale Horse, which is probably an allusion to William Cooper (Milton William Cooper), author of "Behold a Pale Horse" — not a good sign, since Cooper was gunned down by a deputy sheriff in a team of deputies sent to lure out and arrest Cooper in Eagar, Arizona, on November 5, 2001.
The thing is that the "liberals" are literally antagonizing these types of people. They are lumping then all together as if they all believe exactly the same thing, which is not true.
What we should all be concerned about is the government doing another idiotic thing like Waco, Texas. It was just not the right way to handle David Koresh and his followers.
Why Keith Olbermann insists upon being the mouthpiece for people doing this lumping of everyone together is just a shame. It's no better then what FOX News does in reverse.
Should this militia fellow in Ohio be referring to himself and his group as militia? No. At worst, in this case, "militia" should be reserved for referring to groups such as the "well-regulated militia" intended by the Constitution. He thinks he's a "Constitutionalist" afterall. I understand that he thinks he's supporting and upholding its true spirit, but he's diverging even from it's already more than shifty spirit. Should he cover his face? No. That just serves to make people believe that he has things to hide, which runs contrary to the story he tells from his mouth. Should he be telling people to buy guns while in the same breath very directly suggesting that the federal government is going to start moving on people doing exactly what he's doing. No. He's just fueling the fire. Should Keith Olbermann fall right into fueling the fire on his side. No. Should the Southern Poverty Law Center be drum beating about it? No. I don't admire what they are doing at all.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has become a dangerous front. They aren't peacemakers with their approach. They have an agenda that contains harm. They are poisoning the ability of people to debate the issue of homosexuality for instance: whether or not it is a choice or harmless or harmful, etc., and whether homosexuals should be coerced.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is twisting words such as "hate" into an impossible concept, whereas it is right to hate that which is harmful while claiming not to be. Jesus Christ hated afterall, and rightly so, even while he also loved those he hated.
In Christianity, "hate" is a relative term. Anything less than perfect (less than Godly) is "hated." It is hated so that the goal will be as righteous and therefore as harmless as can be. Hating evil is not a bad thing. It cannot easily be learned when the debate about what it is and how to get there, and even whether to try, is shutdown by those who refuse to learn the scope of language and to engage it. The language can become perfectly understandable but not if dialogue is shut down before the words properly and openly are interpreted for souls to be able to reconcile with the best path forward for the whole of humanity. The Southern Poverty Law Center and many of the groups with which it is closely associated are pre-censoring by lumping various types together so much that the truth is being stifled. They are being illiberal in both the mundane and divines senses.
Both sides need to cool their jets. Barack Obama needs to tell Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, to be more careful. The way they used the expression "right-wing extremism" is so immature.
There are people who are mentally unstable who could rightly be labeled potentially violent right-wing extremists, but why drive them to it? Why not redress their grievances in earnest? Why not be good to them? Why not alleviate their fears? Why not engage them out in the open? Why not debate the politics in an open, honest, and direct way where no one will feel it necessary to yell that he or she is not being heard?
The so-called Ohio militia man said his views are being censored. He has a point. He obviously believes that the U.S. Constitution guarantees his right to bear arms to "protect his family," as he puts it. Protect them from what? Well, he probably started out thinking protect them from criminals who would harm them. Now though, he can point to poorly worded, poorly thought-out, equally immature reactions by the federal government.
This is not good. It just disintegrates the dialogue where the truth might otherwise come out and people might be led properly into real peace and freedom from evil that is violence and coercion.
Well, I'm doing my best to tell both sides. I find very little help out there though. It's a shame.
In the interest of gun ownership so-called rights and anti-authoritarianism, the advocates do a disservice to everyone when they twist data.
One of the reasons I wouldn't give it a blanket endorsement is because the topic deserves to be viewed over the long haul in terms of whether or not certain restrictions are being brought in gradually and incrementally to create a global plutocracy.
I know that the global plutocracy already exists and that its movement is constantly toward consolidation even in the face of set backs and divisions within that movement. Abusive/self-centered science and technology really are threats that only the metaphysical can hold off in the end. That's a topic few are willing to confront for lack of attention span for one.
Thanks to the Clio and Me blog's short post, "Abusing History in Support of Gun Rights," for pointing to the FactCheck article.
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)