From the video description on YouTube (misspellings corrected; other errors left):
While on a peaceful march near Union Square in downtown Manhattan, multiple female protesters were penned up in the street by orange mesh barricade, then maliciously maced. The women were peaceful and unarmed. They were secured by barricade with an overwhelming police presence. And they were then sprayed directly in the face with pressurized mace... WeAreTheOther99 continues to peacefully occupy lower Manhattan to begin a dialogue with the Top 1% with the goal of a peaceful transition of power back to the People. This can no longer be stopped. But be advised, this will not be televised...
I have extremely serious issues with the police for doing that. The protesters would have been within their rights under US law, under the US Constitution, and whether the Supreme Court were to claim otherwise or not, to physically fight back in self-defense against totally blatant illegal activity and violence being perpetrated upon them by those police.
There will come a time, possibly in the not-to-distant future, when someone will be so infuriated at these sadistic, evil tactics that he or she or they will literally mow down lines of police before anyone can stop it and then escape and not ever be caught.
I'll even go so far as to say that if these tactics continue and also continue to increase, which they clearly have been over the last couple of decades, there will be groups that will figure out how to function so as to appear completely uninvolved to the police but be a part of a huge, violent, revolutionary uprising.
Why the supposed democratic leadership, Democratic and Republican, is not livid at the police for doing this sort of thing and stopping it, is disgusting.
Barack Obama criticizes dictators against whom the Arab Spring sprang up, but he does nothing but ignore these local police sadists macing peaceful, unarmed political demonstrators/protesters.
Now, it is my understanding that the New York Police Department hired CIA agents (former or not?) to teach that force how to spy nationally and even internationally. Part of that "training" includes scouring the Internet for comments such as mine and then spying on the party to "see" whether he or she poses a threat to them.
Let me take the opportunity to say that God sees what you are doing and will unleash Satan to destroy Satan's own: You.
I am not Satan, but you better listen. You are being warned. I'm not hiding that for a second.
By the way, you don't have a right to spy; and you aren't making things safer or more secure by macing the innocent. You are calling down the wrath upon yourselves. It may come in the form of your fellow human beings driven to it by you. It may come directly. I mean metaphysically manifesting in many ways you will be powerless to stop! Either way or both (actually both), you're in trouble already and you've brought it upon yourselves.
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)