I agree with pretty much everything Ken said. The violent-resistance aspect is going to be the ultimate dividing line though.
Those who went to the lions were no cowards. I'm not suggesting Ken would think so; but unlike them, Ken certainly would have fought and killed those leading them into the arenas.
Those who didn't fight back did not make the world a worse place. They led by example. They lived the Golden Rule. They died for it; and in my book, live on with their children with them.
As for the tattoos, I see tattoos and body piercings as unnatural choices, unreal, a mistake. I would discourage anyone from getting them. However, they are not at the top of my list of priorities of things humanity should correct. We do though need to work on both the big and small things, for the small add up.
I don't dislike Ken; but I want people to choose no human-on-human violence, which compassion for the sick who are violent will carry over to compassion for the "the non-humans," as Ken referred to the other living beings on the planet.
There is one other area not touched on in the ranging video I want to address and that's Ken's position that Julian Assange is some sort of intelligence agent for the CIA and/or MI6 or Mossad or what have you. Ken O'Keefe is now on board at least somewhat with the Gordon Duff crowd over at Veterans Today. I completely disagree that they've provided any substantiated evidence that Assange is such an agent. If there were a falling building such as Building 7 of the World Trade Center we could look at, then there would be reasonable grounds for suspicions, but nothing rises even remotely to that level concerning Julian Assange. WikiLeaks and Assange have been roundly mischaracterized via cherry picked aspects that even then have been distorted for effect.
Assange tried the massive dumping of material. It didn't work. He did not write the contents of the Cablegate cables. Yet a reading of Veterans Today's site suggests that we are to simply forget those things, those facts. So, I strongly disagree with Ken's decision, if he has come to it, to come to some final, condemnatory judgment about Julian Assange based upon not flimsy evidence but absolutely fabricated evidence. Maybe he hasn't looked into the shoddiness of Gordon Duff's work on the subject though. You may learn about that from my series: WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
Now, here's a video interview of Ken O'Keefe covering many issues including but not limited to Zionism, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, the Marines, and life:
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)