I support Birgitta Jonsdottir's free-speech and free-press efforts. In fact, I support The Twitter Seven
- Julian Assange
- Bradley Manning
- Rop Gongrijp
in their efforts to be treated constitutionally and in accordance with the highest international law. However, also look at all the other people who will be dragged in via this dragnet of Barack Obama's and Eric Holder's, etc. They all have rights that are about to be trampled upon if the subpoena served on Twitter is not withdrawn.
In addition, if I write a private message to Birgitta Jonsdottir, I expect it to remain so unless she or I make it public without coercion unless the highest law is followed. I expect that the government will not be allowed to look at it unless the government has demonstrated that there is probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed and that my communication would likely reveal useful evidence to convict. Attorney General Eric Holder and his US attorneys have zero right to read my messages to her under any other circumstances.
I'm not releasing them from Christian obligations though. Their government is secular, even though Barack Obama feigns Christianity. You don't have to be a Christian to agree with the gist of this article though, so read on.
Birgitta Jonsdottir has an internationally recognized right to demand that the US court not be aiding in a mere fishing expedition by the US Attorney General's office. There has to have been a determination that there is probable cause to suspect Julian Assange and/or WikiLeaks, etc., of having broken US law at the very least. I have seen no such evidence to suggest such law breaking has happened.
I am gratified to learn that Birgitta's U.S. lawyers will motion the court to stay or quash the subpoena.
Furthermore, Twitter should refuse to comply with the government at this point regardless.
Why should a major US corporation finally rollover in this matter? Twitter has a right to make sure that the order is constitutional. Considering the First Amendment and Assange's, WikiLeaks', and Birgitta's and others' international rights, Twitter could certainly refuse to disclose the information. Afterall, everyone posting on Twitter can be a journalist. I certainly post news there. Also, there might be confidential lawyer-client and/or clergy-parishioner communications. All sorts of legitimately confidential communications could be on Twitter's servers, not that, that's the place for that; but the parties involved at least should feel the government can't force it from Twitter against constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights, which is the highest secular law of the land (the US).
Given what Twitter has done, if it turns out that Facebook or Google or any other such corporation, especially those with deep pockets and huge law firms on retainer, have turned over material without requesting the court to unseal the orders, then those corporation should at least do that retroactively (move to have the orders unsealed) so that all those involved may be informed directly, which those corporations should then do (notify everyone).
Now I'm wondering why Twitter did not message me that my communications with those named in the subpoena may be subject to governmental intrusion, just as Mark Stephens makes perfectly clear would happen via this US government fishing expedition, this dragnet so reminiscent of the reprehensible and totally illegal NSA telecom spying under George W. Bush following 9/11, for which Barack Obama and Eric Holder continued looking the other way as they obtained office rather than going right after the culprits as their job descriptions require.
I call upon Eric Holder right here (openly) to make public whether or not any of us are being viewed as "terrorists." This is a completely valid request because, as Brigitta has pointed out, Vice President Joe Biden called Julian Assange a cyber terrorist, which he is not at all but rather the opposite. Julian's work seeks to hold the real terrorists accountable, and the US has been terrorizing people's around the world out of the greed of the elitists who have purchased the government to be an instrument of increasing its, the Plutocrats', the Kleptocrats', share of the global pie, leaving less and less for more and more.
I urge the Icelandic Parliament to get behind Birgitta Jonsdottir via unanimous legislation denouncing this dragnet by the US. All other nations should follow suit.
Birgitta Jonsdottir is absolutely right that the US Kleptocrats seek to outlaw whistleblowing. Bradley Manning is a whistleblower who rather than being held in a modern day torture cells/dungeon, should be lauded for taking the war crimes public so the people can make truly informed decisions rather than living in the dark, duped by the system that looks down upon them as too stupid and weak (compassionate) to deserve a say.
"Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die." That's the mentality of those who would lord it over us rather than serve the whole. It's time for them to go!
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are also to be commended for coming to the aid of Birgitta and the others. The American people should do likewise. All civil libertarians should do likewise.
Don't take any of this wrong. I'm not abrogating Christian principles. Everything I said here is imminently supportable under Jesus's teachings. I am not asking for anything that I don't want for everyone else and myself. It is the Golden Rule.
Coercion is not the answer. People freely turning to repentance is.
Now, you might not believe in my God, but that's a different matter. My God tells me to say what I've written here. That's what matters to me most, and it's a good thing for everyone if they will only see it.
Peace, love, and giving and sharing all,
For: The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project
WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
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)