Here's my comment on Juan Cole's not very informed comment about Alex Jones:
In order for Alex Jones to be properly tried and convicted of advocating the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government of the United States under the US Constitution, Alex would have to be guilty of not at the exact same time advocating the restoration of the republican form of government of the US where the definition of republicanism means more than simply having a "President" but means also the absence of dictatorship, creeping or otherwise.
Who here hasn't had issues with imperial aspects of the US presidency?
Juan, you mentioned Gitmo, but certainly that only works to substantiate Alex's point.
You may not agree with everything Alex said, but he'd say he'd defend to the death your right as an American to say it while he'd insist upon his right the keep and bear arms for the day that real patriots in his mind would form well-regulated militias to, again, restore the republic by ousting the dictator usurpers undermining not just the 2nd amendment but of course the 1st and 4th and likely others.
So before you condemn him for treason, you better think this whole thing through to completion.
By the way, I don't own a gun (never have) and I'm not going to kill anybody for anything.
You see, once a government of the US overreaches and grossly violates the Bill of Rights and the Congress doesn't stand up to impeach and remove, etc., under the US Constitution, then Alex Jones believes that that government is no longer duly constituted but rogue and that all of the powers of government are still vested in the people to rise up, including violently if necessary, if it comes to that, to reconstitute proper government.
Calling Alex Jones a terrorist or a traitor to the US Constitution is more than problematic for anyone who knows that this nation was formed by revolution against anti-republicans. It's technically slander and when put in writing, libel. Think what you will about him, but Alex Jones is no terrorist or traitor to the US Constitution.
If you want to solve the 2nd amendment issue, then amend the US Constitution (if you are able) to remove well-regulated militias of regular citizens armed with their own weapons they can keep and can bear. Also, you do understand that anyone who refuses to be conscripted into any such so-called reasonable militia doesn't have the right to keep or to bear, right?
Where's the line between a 2nd amendment civilian army and non-civilian military-service personnel. Is it clear in your mind? It better be before you attempt to change the 2nd amendment.
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)