On 9/11/2009, Alex Jones did a piece against Bill O'Rielly having called Charlie Sheen a pinhead (video below) for calling for a new and this time thorough investigation of 9/11 because it was an inside job (and it most certainly was an inside job). What I keyed in on in Alex's talk was that Alex called this a "peaceful revolution." That is exactly what I wrote that it needs to be, that I want it to be. That was a very, very wise thing for Alex to say. By saying that (and he should repeat it often), he has and will continue to disarm those who attempt to conflate the 9/11 Truth Movement with violent militia movements (regardless of how "patriotic" those militia members imagine themselves to be). Alex and his followers will be vastly better off and better served if they are guided by the Holy Spirit of peace, love, and truth.
It does not mean backing down at all. It does not mean shying away from seeking and speaking the truth, quite the contrary. It does not mean loving Satan. It does though require taking the highest moral ground and striving mightily to be as consistent as possible.
Now, Bill O'Rielly said that Charlie Sheen was being wrong toward the families who lost members on 9/11. I've heard Bill hide behind that notion before. I believe he's never really been told pointblank that not only is he wrong, and he knows it, but the attempt to make that position work is just plain stupid. It is definitely going to backfire on him. He's going to be dressed down by some 9/11 family members and rightly so.
There may be some family members who don't want to deal or cope with the truth coming out because those members are emotionally fragile. That is understandable, and the Truth Movement must show them the compassion they require. Different people, due to abuse and other factors that go into their makeup, have different abilities at any given time to handle what can be highly emotionally stressful. Well, they don't have to handle it in the sense of being out front, of taking the lead. There are enough family members who are willing and desirous that it isn't necessary for those who might lose it, so to speak, not to have to get out front.
To those members who are desirous of getting the truth out there no matter what, they love what Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones are doing. They are glad for every single voice that calls for the truth concerning 9/11. Therefore, do not be intimidated by the weakening Bill O'Rielly; and make no mistake, he is weakening.
Don't rush to thinking that Glenn Beck is going to pick up the false-conservative (neocon) mantle either because it's a fake and being exposed. FOX News is a bad yarn, a very bad yarn. It won't make it unless it is completely remade, which can't happen until after Rupert Murdoch is dead in the flesh, unless he too agrees to be remade.
Alex is calling for a public call for a redress of grievances. What must not happen is civil disobedience. That would ruin it. That would give the neocons what they want. Also, the 9/11 Truthers must be on high alert for agents provocateur who will attempt to cause violence and destruction that they will blame on the Truthers so the riot police can bash them physically and worse (for pay and sick pleasure).
What's the Christian position? Speak the truth in public, but don't put faith in the worldly system of Satan. Working within that system has never worked and never will. It will always give only fleeting results. Therefore, plan and execute the Christian Commons.
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)