When George W. Bush was at the height of his raping of the Bill of Rights, when he was conducting total dragnets of all Internet traffic, something I wrote long before the whistle blower leaked the facts about the NSA cable in the major telecom hub, when he was doing extraordinary renditions, extra-judicial killings, and on and on, when he was conducting a huge cover-up about 9/11, when he was lying and lying and lying about Iraq and Saddam Hussein and others, I kept also writing that his administration was playing with fire, especially when the neocons where lying about Iran's alleged nuclear-weapons program, which Iran didn't have and doesn't have now. I said that Bush and his crew, his followers and economic masters, were risking a violent backlash from within right here in America.
Now I have to say that the same thing is happening but only more likely to cause a violent backlash because this time it is a Democratic President and he, Barack Obama, is threatening to disarm I don't know how many Americans who are genuinely concerned that it would be a step right before the complete undoing of even the semblance of rights under the Bill of Rights — in other words, the complete undoing of all those written freedoms, shredding them for all intense and purposes.
Barack Obama is still doing all sorts of unconstitutional things all over the planet (GITMO, drones, killing American citizens without trial); and the liberals, who are really not very left (real leftists hate Obama), are simply misbelieving that they can trust Obama. However, just look at all of the broken promises nearly across-the-board. About the only thing he's done is strengthen the homosexuals and solely because he knows that many of them are rather fascistic anyway. Even on his signature Obamacare, he pulled the rug out from under the Single-Payer Movement, which had been growing and growing and was actually the majority position in American public opinion at the time. Look at how he is still rewarding the banksters. The legal settlements have left those banksters without as much as a dent in their wealth and power. In fact, they are even richer now than before while the common people are much, much worse off saddled with all of the National Debt, to have to work it off while the banksters live in sickening luxury.
Love him or hate him, Franklin Roosevelt would never have let the current crop of banksters get away with what Barack Obama has allowed them to do. FDR would have told Bill Black to clean up the mess, and Bill Black would have done just that.
Well, the top brass didn't have the guts to take down George W. Bush. They certainly should have because George W. Bush was violating the US Constitution left and right, doing all sorts of high crimes. The US Congress certainly didn't do what it should have: impeach him and remove him and Cheney with him. The military was completely within its rights under the Constitution to protect it from the enemies within (they take an oath to that end) to conduct a legal coup to restore the Bill of Rights. They didn't do it because the top brass came up from within, and those who wouldn't go along with the blatant illegalities were removed, were not elevated, not rewarded with power at the Pentagon, etc.
This time though, it's different. This time, if Obama pushes his plan, there will be many, many frontline and middle officers and others who may finally be pushed to the wall and feel that they have no choice.
Even Mike Adams, not a hot head at all, is writing in a way that should give even Barack Obama pause.
Beware, radicals on the left. Beware what you wish for... and what you unleash. Your continued insulting and "terrorist" labeling of legal firearms owners across America is only strengthening the resolve of those you would be unwise to provoke. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the military and law enforcement are on your side; they are not. The most capable defenders of American society today are also the most dedicated, sworn defenders of the American constitution and its Bill of Rights. If you press your fascist agenda too far, you will trigger an almost automatic response from every sector of society, law enforcement and the military.
And that response will drench the streets of our nation with unnecessary blood. This is why my heart sobs for history harshly learned.
Am I for the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government of the United States? No. Am I for sitting silently by while the freedoms in the Bill of Rights are trashed by what calls itself the duly constituted government of the United States? No. Can a duly constituted government of the United States trash the Bill of Rights? No. Any entity calling itself the government of the United States that trashes the Bill of Rights, that doesn't amend the Constitution via the means outlined in that document, is certainly not duly constituted. That's how it is.
Any entity calling itself the government of the United States that trashes the Bill of Rights, that doesn't amend the Constitution via the means outlined in that document, is an illegal entity, an outlaw, a rogue, and should be put down by the people.
I would want that to happen without violence. I would want that to happen without retribution afterwards. I would want it to happen such that as a Christian, I could later say that I upheld the principles of Jesus Christ.
However, not everyone in the US is a fellow Christian but many of those non-Christians will fight violently and even to the death to protect and to restore the Bill of Rights trashed by an unlawfully constituted entity claiming governmental power and authority.
The 2nd Amendment definitely is for citizens to keep and to bear arms. Yes, it's for the sake of well-regulated militias, and those militias were citizen armies that fought the British and were considered illegal militias under British law. Those well-regulated militias today would be for the main purpose of putting down and entity claiming it can and is trying to overthrow the US Constitution by illegally confiscating the arms of the citizenry.
Do I believe the 2nd Amendment allows a well-regulated citizen militia to have even weapons of mass destruction? Frankly, if the threat is great enough against the US Constitution, then any well-regulated citizen militia may under the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution (to preserve it and protect it) have any weapons the opposition (enemies within against the Bill of Rights) may have.
Do I believe in the political system that is the United States of America, meaning do I believe it is the best form of government we could have? No. It is decidedly un-Christian, anti-Christ, but I am arguing from within it while I am still critical of it. I am doing so for the sake of being a peacemaker, a peacekeeper.
Barack Obama is a reckless person, a thoughtless person, a dangerous person, very dangerous, a stupid, misguided man who falsely imagines himself smarter and wiser than anyone else on the planet. He was an extremely bad choice to lead this nation. So too was George W. Bush and many others before him. If I don't speak out, I will be complicit in their crimes against humanity and nature and God. I won't do that.
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)