Continued from a previous post and based upon a comment reply of mine over on Facebook
Alex does have guests who say some ridiculous things that are often designed to leave the speaker weasel room. The shape-shifters of David Icke are the stuff of imagination (he is not channeling minds from the Alpha Draconis star system); but figuratively speaking, he does describe the evil spirit. Does he ever come right out and say whether he means what he's saying as literally as the most ardent literalists take the Bible?
As for Alex's emotionalism, I think it has much to do with the supplements he may be taking. He has money and there are "mind-enhancing" supplements available from outside the U.S. that if one isn't careful can over stimulate the brain. The Libertarians (the better off ones) are often into such drugs. I'm not opposed to a little bit of such drugs. There just isn't enough care taken to keep people from overdosing. That's not because the drugs are more dangerous than those in the U.S. but because the U.S. bans them since U.S. Big Pharma doesn't stand to profit from them being available to Americans via regular channels.
I see Alex maturing, learning, and growing provided the powers that be don't deliberately drive him completely insane. When discussing things with people who are highly informed, he does tend to qualify his statements more, which is good. He should do it more with the rank and file. He's going to have to bring them along though.
As for Webster Tarpley (someone Alex Jones has on his show often and whom Alex appears to admire and to whom Alex also often defers), I've read Webster Tarpley (George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography) and seen him in various videos. Much of what he says is right. He seems to be under the spell of Big Oil though, as does Alex Jones.
Little fry Libertarians are strange on environmentalism. They just don't get it that the richest anti-environmentalist don't give a damn about those little fry. The Koch brothers fund the Cato Institute to dupe the little people into accepting Koch's oil, gas, coal, chemicals, etc., for instance.
Alex cozying up to Charlie Sheen isn't going to hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement either. It doesn't belong to Libertarians, as Tarpley also shows.
Big Tobacco isn't what it was once in the U.S., but it's still evil, huge, and growing in the world in general. Big Tobacco and Bid Oil come out from the same dark spirit.
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)