Birgitta JÃ³nsdÃ³ttir (Jonsdottir) put the following on her Facebook Wall:
I asked the Icelandic foreign affairs minister during Q&A at the parliament if he was willing to condemn the blackout on Al Jazeera and the Internet in Egypt. I also asked him if he was willing to support the demands of the people taking to the streets in Egypt for democratic reform. He said Yes to it all. Press release to come soon. Waiting for translations to English from the transcript.
Then she posted on her blog about it, and I tweeted it and informed her:
Birgitta JÃ³nsdÃ³ttir: Icelandic Foreign Affairs Minister responds to protests in Egypt http://t.co/kq1LD6a
I just tweeted your blog post, Birgitta. I hope other nations will follow your lead. Could Iceland take it up at the UN?
i think we should - i will ask
Comments following that one are as follows:
Russell Stein wrote:
Game over, Hosni. Iceland's getting indignant!
Aaron Vincent wrote:
this is not as simple as it seems. for one, al jazeera is british intelligence... they've been running a psyop for the past week trying to push mubarak out... so on the one hand you have free speech, and on the other you have the US state constantly telling egypt to turn the internet back on, mentioning twitter and fb by name... doesnt anyone find this disturbing? why are hillary and obama mentioning fb & twitter by name? because the CIA is using them to run a destabilization operation.... this isnt the first time in history such a thing has been used.. they did the same thing with radio in guatemala in the 50s.
Aaron Vincent further wrote:
so, by championing "free speech" you're helping the CIA's destabilization operation... of course, none of the good ppl on the left see any of this.
Aaron, who told you Al Jazeera [URL spelling: Aljazeera] is British intelligence? Perhaps he or she overstated or you are misquoting. Go back and have another look.
Al Jazeera is not British intelligence. MI6 does not run Al Jazeera. The decisions as to where to be and what to cover, etc., are not made by MI6 and quite often work exactly against the British government's objectives.
The British government worked hand in glove with George W. Bush's neocons to destroy Saddam Hussein. Al Jazeera was there and was bombed by the "Coalition of the Willing" to shut them up.
If Al Jazeera is one and the same as MI6, which is working with the CIA, why is Al Jazeera English not on every cable network in America?
Of course there is overlap between Al Jazeera and British interests, as many people at Al Jazeera and in Britain share many of the same political tenets.
None of what I'm saying here means there hasn't been direct interaction between members of Al Jazeera and members of MI6. Such interaction does not make Al Jazeera MI6 though.
You're telling people not to promote free speech because the CIA exists and does what it does. Are you a libertarian or a Zionist or what?
By the way, the psy-op has been to get out in front of the transition to the new Egyptian leader that would have come regardless of the CIA or MI6 or anyone else. Would you rather everyone just shut up and let Mubarak install his son so that Egypt is a monarchy? What do you believe in, the Divine Right of Kings with absolute sovereignty vested in the top royal?
If you believe that no one should say anything to influence such things, why are you talking? Isn't it hypocritical? Shouldn't you be practicing what you preach?
No, Aaron, I'm not going to take your suggestions. I'm going to call for Mubarak to step down and to let the people decide their next leader or leaders. I would like them to choose those who agree with me; but if they don't, I'd still rather that they have voices and a say in who governs. That way, I may still speak to influence them to do better.
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)