"In a disturbing parallel to the Nazi's kristallnacht, windows are shattering in Democratic offices nationwide. Wingnuts author John Avlon talks exclusively to the militia leader who called for the attacks.
"Late Saturday night, on the eve of the health care vote, a brick was thrown through the window of the Monroe County Democratic Party headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. A note quoting Barry Goldwater was attached to the brick, reading 'extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.'
"This came on the heels of shattered windows at Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's district office in Niagara Falls and a Democratic Party headquarters in Kansas, and just before a similar attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' office in Arizona.
"All this follows the online exhortations of militia leader Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Alabama – who wrote on his blog "Sipsy Street Irregulars" this past Friday: "if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary." The parallels, intentional or not, to the Nazi's heinous 1938 kristallnacht, or "Night of Broken Glass," so-named for the 7,000 storefront windows that were smashed, are hard to ignore."
Please, this John Avlon is way out of line here. Of course, I have yet to read anything by him that's in line with reality. He's sensationalizing this and drumming up fear. He's fear-mongering, which only feeds into the problem.
He's completely avoiding discussing real grievances. He barely even suggests that the connection with Nazism and holocaust, etc., might not be intentional. To be honest, four or so broken windows (tell me it was more, many more, so this guy isn't nearly as bad as he appears here) when the call was for thousands would never have made me think of kristallnacht. What is this John thinking, as if I didn't know.
He's a rabid neocon out to pin "Nazi" on every libertarian. It's sickeningly obvious. Well, I have news for John (it's not really news because he really knows he's fear-mongering). Plenty of libertarians are anti-Nazi. In fact, most are.
Now, I'm not saying that the libertarian capitalists who are ready to shoot it out with the equally misguided Feds who brought us the Waco tragedy have all their facts straight. What I am saying though is that it has been a huge error that Obama and his followers and team bailed out the banksters and revved up the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen and have looked the other way on torture and have backed down in the face of the racist-Zionists.
Let's have some reporting about the various sides rather than this neocon propaganda claptrap. That's not to say that a civil war or violent revolution isn't possible.
I've been saying for years now that the system is playing with fire. They think they'll remain one step out front, but things will get out of hand very quickly if they don't start addressing real concerns on both the right and left.
Peace!Â Â Â Â
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)