United States Notes: #ows Occupy Wall Street, see Federal Reserve Banksters Trample Alex Jones' 1st Amendment Rights

I disagree with Alex Jones on plenty (we disagree about AGW for one), but I agree with him on plenty too. The Occupy Wall Street Movement, the Populist Movement, needs to know that the Federal Reserve really is a huge problem. Banksterism has been a problem for generation after generation. They are parasitic. We don't need our government borrowing a dime from anyone. I've been writing about it for years. We can issue United States Notes free of interest, free of debt, and free of taxes. Those notes can be pegged to real productivity only and in real-time (supercomputers and nodes about could handle it — guaranteed). Economic democracy can be had with a simple decision to have it. We could vote for providing what we need and want and simply do it beholden to nobody, no bankers whether public or private. We can start moving toward a moneyless, classless society. We can lift every boat higher than the highest boat is now. Everything said against this is a flat-out lie.

Here's the video description:

We have received a privacy claim by agents of the FED. They are threatening to remove the video and take down the channel within 36 hours if we don't bow down to their demands. Alex is preparing a video response later and will talk about this more on the (Monday Edition) of the Alex Jones Show. Alex is also looking at taking legal action against the Privately owned Federal Reserve for violating his crews first amendment rights when they were shooting film at a world war one memorial back in April 2009.
(See Video) below.

Alex was also harassed by the military when he protested the dallas fed back in Nov, 2008.
(See Video) Below.
On November 22, 2008, Alex Jones led a rally at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas Texas. The Dallas protest is specifically mentioned in the official Army document. Ron Paul's brother was also in attendance.

In this next video, I believe Alex Jones shows that he is conflicted. It's understandable. He is right that under the US Constitution, the people have a secular "right" violently to resist tyranny.

I'm a Christian. I wasn't always. I converted. Before doing that, I knew it would mean embracing pacifism. It was a difficult transition. I had always been afraid of pacifism because I knew it would be harder to take it than to dish it back. It's the right thing to do, but the violent police state types need to understand that I'm in an extreme minority. The vast, vast majority of the people will fight physically and even to the death if pushed far enough, and they are being severely strained to maintain peaceful protests. I've been saying for some time that the rich are "playing with fire" the way they are trampling the rest for no other reason than those rich are takers under false pretenses, greedy, and pay "muscle," as they were call when I was a boy.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.