Where was the church ...

[B/W Photodude]

So, where was the church during all the alt-left violence in the days and weeks after the regime change in Washington? Thru all the death threats against the president, the media lies, where was the churches voice then?

http://www.nadadventist.org/article/1073743543/news/current-and-archived-news-stories/2017-current-news-archives/8-14-17-adventist-church-in-north-america-responds-to-hate-violence-in-charlottesville

[Gregory Matthews]

I have deleted a post.

It is acceptable for one to disagree with a post.

It may (?) be acceptable for one to speculate on psychological issues related to a newsworthy person or event.

It may (?) be acceptable for one to tell another how they present themselves.

However, there are some statements, when directed to another of our members, that should be said in a private conversation.  I personally believe that the post I deleted was of that type.  I believe that it crossed a line.

I acknowledge that the line between what is acceptable and what is not, is not always clear.    I acknowledge that we may not always agree as to where that line should be drawn.

Well, I felt it should not be in public view, so I deleted it.  It is now gone.

 

[Bravus]

The alt-right want to kill black people. The 'alt-left' want universal health care.

False equivalence is false.

[CoAspen]

Ya, not sure how one can equate a death in Virginia at the hands of an 'extremist' with the  'hue and cry' over health care. Not sure why the .org should write editorials about about political happenings. As to accusations about 'lies' from the media, well that is a way of deflection from real issues.

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, Bravus said:

The alt-right want to kill black people

C'mon, Bravus!  You shouldn't label all alt-right people as murderous haters any more than you can label all Muslims as such.  There are African Americans among the alt-right movement; just like there are Caucasians in the "Black Lives Matter" movement.  Alt-Right is not ruled exclusively by the KKK and other white supremacists any more than Islam is ruled exclusively by ISIS and the Taliban.

[CoAspen]

I love labels! Have no clue who is included in or what it is...alt-right. Have a feeling that labels are designed just to confuse people and make it easy to point fingers!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

....when I select alt-R on my computer, I get the "registered trademark" symbol:   ®  

.... "alt" means "old" in German..  "Old Right"... "Old-Rite".... there is a Russian Orthodox "Old-Rite" church, and their current bishop discharges his duties from the town of Braila in the Ukraine.  Braila is on the Danube River.  Now, the Danube Waltz was written by Johann Strauss, who was buried in Vienna, Austria.  There is an Adventist school in Austria, Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, near Braunau.  Braunau is where Adolf Hitler was born. Hitler rose to power in 1933.  Carol Burnett and Tim Conway were both born in 1933, and are comedians.  One of the funniest comedians ever was Great Britain's Benny Hill.  Benny Hill's theme song makes a California car chase take on a comedic tone.  (see below)

So who are the alt-Right?  Darned if I know.  Looks like it could refer to just about anyone, given the proper build-up....

 

[CoAspen]

Hilarious! Now maybe we can found out what the 'alt-left' is.....or not!!

[Bravus]

'alt-right' has come to be shorthand for white supremacy - which is not 100% accurate, but that's what I was talking about. Pretty sure there are not black people in the white supremacist groups.

[CoAspen]

Ya, I knew what you were referring to.

[B/W Photodude]

On 8/15/2017 at 8:51 PM, Bravus said:

The alt-right want to kill black people. The 'alt-left' want universal health care.

The alt-right is not out to kill people. The alt-left and their healthcare actually have killed millions. Well, more than 50 million since Roe v. Wade. BLM ironically misses the part where more black babies in major cities like Atlanta and New York are terminated before birth than black babies that are actually born. This is really a full on program of genocide against blacks in this country.

In this year alone, the riots and demonstrations on the part of leftist groups have resulted in a massive display of vulgarity at the women's protest at the inauguration of the president with their explicitly sexual costumes. Anita which was behind some of the riots including Berkeley has been linked to pedophile groups such as NAMBLA.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/28/documents-tie-berkeley-riot-organizers-to-pro-pedophilia-group-nambla/

And as I said in the original post, not until an actual attack by someone said to be "alt-right" did the NAD come out with a public statement regarding violence in demonstrations. Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country have been by leftists.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/19/after-scalise-shooting-alt-left-violence-becoming-harder-to-ignore.html

[B/W Photodude]

22 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

"Anita" should be "Antifa".

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

The alt-right is not out to kill people.

But it certainly stands for and idolizes those that did just exactly that, Nazi's, white supremacists, etc. Have we forgotten the 6 million? 

They also stand for 'freedom', if you are white. 

Blaming the NAD for speaking out in this situation, and not in others is not exactly correct, there have been articles and editorials in .org publications about previous acts of violence and the general tone/rhetoric of what we see happening in this coutry today.

Quote

The alt-left and their healthcare actually have killed millions. Well, more than 50 million since Roe v. Wade. BLM ironically misses the part where more black babies in major cities like Atlanta and New York are terminated before birth than black babies that are actually born.

A bold statement, where are the facts? Is this thread really about abortion, which is legal and a personal choice? What is the real complaint the poster has against the NAD/.org??

[CoAspen]

Quote

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe.^[1][2][3][4] Paul Gottfried is the first person to use the term "alternative right", when referring specifically to developments within American right-wing politics, in 2008.^[5] The term has since gained wide currency with the rise of the so-called "alt-right". White supremacist^[6] Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.^[1][7][8] The term drew considerable media attention and controversy during and after the 2016 US presidential election.^[9]

Alt-right beliefs have been described as isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, and white supremacist,^[10][11][12] frequently overlapping with Neo-Nazism,^[13][14][15] nativism and Islamophobia,^{[16][17][18][19][20]}antifeminism and homophobia,^{[13][21][22][23]} right-wing populism,^[24][25] and the neoreactionary movement.^[10][26] The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.^{[16][25][26][27][28]}

From Wikipedia

Quote

noun

1.

a political movement originating on social media and online forums,composed of a segment of conservatives who support extreme right-wing ideologies, including white nationalism and anti-Semitism

Dictionary

Definitions of alt-right and alt-left

 

[phkrause]

8 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country have been by leftists.

How do you know that they are leftists?? Did they say they were?? Just because people love those stupid labels, doesn't make them so-called leftists!!!!! How about those that kill doctors that do abortions?? Are they are rightists????? Not in my book!!!!! People are people period and they do things that are sinful, not because they are left or right. Everyone of us has a little of each of your so-called labels!!!!! If your in love with labels than according to your own meaning, which I'm getting from the way you post, the POTUS would be on the left and not on the right!!!!! According to the POTUS there were many good people on each side of the protesters!! How can that be?? Because according to Jesus, no one is good, but the Father!!!!! Besides how can a person that hates anyone be "good?" That goes for anyone on the so-called left or right!!!!!

[B/W Photodude]

I reviewed back thru the archives of the site that posted the article linked to in the original post and found nothing going back over the last year and a half that balanced the  post they made the other day and which was linked to. For the church to jump into the fray against one side of a battle which pits extremists on both sides of the political spectrum was disappointing. What has happened to America and even to Western Civilization of the last few decades is a fight that has become very ugly. Just how ugly the extremists have gotten is illustrated in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwSYhTWk6E8

I do not believe the church should get involved in these really ugly fights on the political scene. Things were really ugly politically in the days Jesus was on this earth, and social justice was not part of His ministry. He always was above fighting.

I also do not believe that the NAD did the readers a service and possibly harmed people by bringing them into this fight. It doesn't matter whether you support "Black Lives Matter" or "White Lives Matter," it is another movement leading many to eternal loss. My own viewpoint of many of these social justice causes bring me back to a statement Ellen White wrote many years ago:

    On the “March to Death”—Satan is busily at work in our crowded cities. His
    work is to be seen in the confusion, the strife and discord between labor
    and capital, and the hypocrisy that has come into the churches. That men
    may not take time to meditate, Satan leads them into a round of gayety
    and pleasure-seeking, of eating and drinking. He fills them with ambition
    to make an exhibition that will exalt self. Step by step, the world is
    reaching the conditions that existed in the days of Noah. Every
    conceivable crime is committed. The lust of the flesh, the pride of the
    eyes, the display of selfishness, the misuse of power, the cruelty, and
    the force used to cause men to unite with confederacies and
    unions—binding themselves up in bundles for the burning of the great
    fires of the last days—all these are the working of Satanic agencies.
    This round of crime and folly men call “life.”... – {Ev 26.1}

While the ideologies have somewhat changed over the century since she was with us, the end result has not. There are many getting caught up in these movements that are "binding themselves up in bundles for the burning of the great fires of the last days."

Here is another graphic illustration of the "bundles for the burning":
    I saw the rapidity with which this delusion was spreading. A train of cars
    was shown me, going with the speed of lightning. The angel bade me look
    carefully. I fixed my eyes upon the train. It seemed that the whole world
    was on board, that there could not be one left. Said the angel, “They are
    binding in bundles ready to burn.” Then he showed me the conductor, who
    appeared like a stately, fair person, whom all the passengers looked up
    to and reverenced. I was perplexed and asked my attending angel who it
    was. He said, “It is Satan. He is the conductor in the form of an angel
    of light. He has taken the world captive. They are given over to strong
    delusions, to believe a lie, that they may be damned. 

[Gary K]

3 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I reviewed back thru the archives of the site that posted the article linked to in the original post and found nothing going back over the last year and a half that balanced the  post they made the other day and which was linked to. For the church to jump into the fray against one side of a battle which pits extremists on both sides of the political spectrum was disappointing. What has happened to America and even to Western Civilization of the last few decades is a fight that has become very ugly. Just how ugly the extremists have gotten is illustrated in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwSYhTWk6E8

 

I do not believe the church should get involved in these really ugly fights on the political scene. Things were really ugly politically in the days Jesus was on this earth, and social justice was not part of His ministry. He always was above fighting.

I also do not believe that the NAD did the readers a service and possibly harmed people by bringing them into this fight. It doesn't matter whether you support "Black Lives Matter" or "White Lives Matter," it is another movement leading many to eternal loss. My own viewpoint of many of these social justice causes bring me back to a statement Ellen White wrote many years ago:

    On the “March to Death”—Satan is busily at work in our crowded cities. His
    work is to be seen in the confusion, the strife and discord between labor
    and capital, and the hypocrisy that has come into the churches. That men
    may not take time to meditate, Satan leads them into a round of gayety
    and pleasure-seeking, of eating and drinking. He fills them with ambition
    to make an exhibition that will exalt self. Step by step, the world is
    reaching the conditions that existed in the days of Noah. Every
    conceivable crime is committed. The lust of the flesh, the pride of the
    eyes, the display of selfishness, the misuse of power, the cruelty, and
    the force used to cause men to unite with confederacies and
    unions—binding themselves up in bundles for the burning of the great
    fires of the last days—all these are the working of Satanic agencies.
    This round of crime and folly men call “life.”... – {Ev 26.1}

While the ideologies have somewhat changed over the century since she was with us, the end result has not. There are many getting caught up in these movements that are "binding themselves up in bundles for the burning of the great fires of the last days."

Here is another graphic illustration of the "bundles for the burning":
    I saw the rapidity with which this delusion was spreading. A train of cars
    was shown me, going with the speed of lightning. The angel bade me look
    carefully. I fixed my eyes upon the train. It seemed that the whole world
    was on board, that there could not be one left. Said the angel, “They are
    binding in bundles ready to burn.” Then he showed me the conductor, who
    appeared like a stately, fair person, whom all the passengers looked up
    to and reverenced. I was perplexed and asked my attending angel who it
    was. He said, “It is Satan. He is the conductor in the form of an angel
    of light. He has taken the world captive. They are given over to strong
    delusions, to believe a lie, that they may be damned. 

When the church criticizes one group and not the other it is taking sides in a political struggle.  They don't criticize people to do this: http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/06/23/portland-police-chief-says-antifa-protesters-used-slingshot-to-launch-urine-and-feces-filled-balloons-at-riot-cops/ .  Why?  There are many reports of these same groups doing this at Charlottesville too.  It is something they do again and again.  It is well-known behavior for antifa. 

In my opinion this was all a set up.  It is an excuse to clamp down on free speech.  And the media and political left are using this incident exactly that way.   That the church should weigh in on the side of those who want to destroy liberty is, well, shall we say, unfortunate at the very least. 

Quote

Especially solemn is the apostle’s statement regarding those who should refuse to receive “the love of the truth.” “For this cause,” he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266.2}

Quote

God Preached Through Methuselah, Noah, and Others—God granted them one hundred and twenty years of probation, and during that time preached to them through Methuselah, Noah, and many others of His servants. Had they listened to the testimony of these faithful witnesses, had they repented and returned to their loyalty, God would not have destroyed them (The Review and Herald, April 23, 1901).

Quote

They worshipped selfish indulgence,—eating, drinking, merry-making,—and resorted to acts of violence and crime if their desires and passions were interfered with.
In the days of Noah the overwhelming majority was opposed to the truth, and enamored with a tissue of falsehoods. The land was filled with violence. War, crime, murder, was the order of the day. Just so will it be before Christ’s second coming (Manuscript 24, 1891).

Truth has been rejected for so long that the last Ellen White quote on the antedeluvians is an exact fit for our day.  People are enamored with a tissue of falsehoods.  Truth lies in the gutter being ignored or spat upon.  It's like Jesus said, ...when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?  This, once again, is a very accurate description of the days in which we live.  In many ways it describes some factions within the SDA church to a tee.  

[Geoarrge]

That's an interesting definition, but considering Wikipedia's record on political subjects, most recently in revising several of the articles referenced by James Damore's memo at Google, there's reason to dispute their objectivity.
I've read a handful of alt-right blogs since 2014,  as they have overlapped somewhat with the 'Manosphere'. Perhaps it's an overly narrow cross section and my picture is less comprehensive than I think, but my observations contradict the  portrayal given by most of the news media since the election year. One writer I usually read is Vox Day, who I must point out is currently working on separating neo-Nazis and other flavors of national-socialist from the alt right.  I do not agree with everything he says but I find that articulating my disagreements is a worthy intellectual exercise (and therefore very definitely should not be banished to the Bog of Eternal Stench).  Here is a recent article in his defense, by a Jewish writer,  which includes some rebuttal of the charges of antisemitism: https://www.menofthewest.net/the-man-in-the-arena/

The point is, the alt-right is not what the media have been telling everyone it is. Without delving into conspiracy theories, I think the reason Richard Spencer was presumed to be the figurehead is mainly because he runs a small think tank and a magazine; these things seem important to the minds of traditional journalists who consider their own work important. These journalists could be expected to ascribe similar importance to what they perceive as their enemy counterparts, though this underestimates the significance of decentralized networks of independent bloggers and vloggers on the Internet. Also, from a sensationalist standpoint, Spencer makes for a scarier bogeyman since he admits to being a national-socialist, even though that places him to the left of most other alt-right personalities. 

This article shows a chart dividing the rally's attendance by affiliation: https://itsgoingdown.org/types-right-wing-groups-attending-unite-right-rally/
This is on an anarchist-affiliated website. As the writer notes, the total adds to 102% because of some overlap between categories, although I do not believe he is being fair by lumping all of the 'southern pride' groups together; not everyone who waves a Confederate flag should be assumed to be a white supremacist and grouped with the KKK.  It is still reasonable to say that at least a slight majority of the 'right-wing' crowd are being unfairly smeared, either when the press labels the entire event 'a white supremacist rally,'  or any other organization's spokesmen paint one side with a broad brush.  Although James Fields is a white supremacist and apparently schizophrenic as well, the facts surrounding the killing of Heather Heyer do make a self-defense plea possible. The anarchists were blocking traffic and attacking cars in the street.  While it would have been no great loss if Fields had been dragged out and pummeled to death, the question people would be asking then is "Couldn't it just as easily have been one of the Oathkeepers?"

All this to say, somebody is trying to start a war over this. Don't get dragged in.  The enforcement apparatus some people would like to set up against alleged 'hate speech' could quickly be adapted to use against other groups.  Consider this film clip as closing thoughts.

 

[B/W Photodude]

59 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

What do you mean "where was the Church?"  It was in the same place The father was when His own Son was crucified.  Its wrong to scapegoat the church for all the ills in society. This post makes no sense

Sorry you are having trouble understanding the post. There was no scapegoating of the church. Someone speaking for the church published an article (see link) which set out to criticize the alt-right, while ignoring all the unseemly behavior of the alt-left. The bottom line in the whole thread from my viewpoint is that the church should not have been taking up one side or the other. There is no mandate from God to become enmeshed in partisan battles of today's decaying society.

I know some have problems labeling any evil done by the left as evil, but that is another issue. One point missed here is that the alt-right marchers had permits for their demonstration and the alt-left protesters did not but showed up looking for trouble. Within their groupthink, it is totally acceptable to deny anyone, who does not speak in a manner acceptable to them, the opportunity to speak a dissenting opinion. Regardless of who was right or wrong in this demonstration, the church should stay out of it.

[Gary K]

Georrge,

Richard Spencer was the leader of Occupy Wall Street before he somehow magically switched and became someone who is on the alt-right politically.  He was praised by Obama multiple times for his pro-socialist agenda and activism.  This is one of the reasons I consider the entire Charlottesville incident to be staged.  

You might be interested in usawatchdog.com too.  The man has some very interesting interviews with financial experts and those who are reading the "tea leaves" of what is coming politically.  To really understand what is happening financially a good book is "The Creature from Jekyll Island" about the origins of the Federal Reserve and its role in bankrupting the US.  The book also gets into the World Bank and IMF and their roles in the political world, for all three of these institutions are more political than financial, as hard as that is to believe, but the author makes a very credible case for everything he says.  The book is a masterpiece of investigative journalism.

[Geoarrge]

19 minutes ago, Gary K said:

Georrge,

Richard Spencer was the leader of Occupy Wall Street before he somehow magically switched and became someone who is on the alt-right politically.  He was praised by Obama multiple times for his pro-socialist agenda and activism.  This is one of the reasons I consider the entire Charlottesville incident to be staged.  

 Spencer has been running the National Policy Institute and Radix Journal for a few years now.  I believe you are referring to Jason Kessler, who fits those details.

[Gary K]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

In the article which you so posted as yet another, so called church sin, I noticed a portion that I think you have over-looked:

Perhaps, some who whip around the accusations do not hear THAT voice because they dont want to?

I think your OP here is completely inacurate.

In the entire article only one side of the issue is talked about.  The KKK, the Nazi's, alt-right, etc... and that includes the quote from the local pastor.  Yet nothing is said about the violence being sparked by antifa showing up, without a permit which makes their assembly/demonstration illegal, with bottles and balloons full of urine and feces, clubs, shields, helmets, etc... to use on the other side.  Had they not shown up would there have been violence?  Very doubtful.  They showed up ready to rumble, and full of hate. 

Have you seen the video that was on Twitter where someone steps off the sidewalk and takes either a two-by-four or a baseball bat to the car of the guy who ran over people?  All he was doing at that time was driving slowly down the opposite side of the street the other protestors were on.  It wasn't until after his car was attacked, and it was only like a second or so between someone smashing his car with a club and the sound of his tires beginning to squeal as he accelerates.  Was he reacting with anger or fear?  We don't know.  But we do know this kid has a history of mental issues that are usually based in fear and paranoia.  And how many 20 year old kids would destroy their beloved hot rod deliberately and premeditatedly by using it as a battering ram?  Not many.   Would he have run over people had he not been attacked?  We most likely will never know.  That group bears some responsibility in that attack itself.   Had someone in that particular group of demonstrators not precipitated the violence at that time that woman might very well still be alive and all those injured might very well not be hurting. 

There was a story too about how that kid had promised his mother he was not going to get violent and stay out of trouble.  Did he think he was doing that by just cruising down the street? Was that in his head, and then someone whom he feared attacked him?  Who is to say what went through the mind of this kid who has had big time mental issues?  Are you ready to say what he did had to have been a premeditated attack?  Are you ready to pre-judge him with very few facts available to you?

There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.  Yet where is the church being balanced in it's point of view?  Where does it condemn the violence that came from both sides?  It does not.  It condemns only one side.  In that it is taking a very politicized stance.  Had the church come out and condemned both sides for the violence and then talked about healing I would see this in a much different light, and I dare say Photodude would too.  The way it is, someone high up in the church decided to make a public political statement, and align themselves with one side of the political spectrum. 

Both sides are despicable.  Antifa is nothing but violent.  So are the Nazi's and the KKK.  But, the KKK is a Democrat brainchild.  They formed it.  They pushed it.  They created the Jim Crow laws with the Dixiecrats as the motivating force in Congress.  At one time in the not so far distant past the only way to get ahead in the Democratic party was to be involved in the KKK.  You don't believe it?  Ask Bill Clinton.  He came out publicly and defended Robert Byrd's involvement in the KKK as a Grand Wizard before Byrd's death by that very logic.  Hillary called Byrd her mentor.  The members of the Democratic party are the only ones of any political party to have ever owned slaves.  No Republican ever owned a slave.  That's historical fact.  Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government in his day.  FDR created concentration camps based purely upon race.  The Democrats have a long history of racism, and no visible pivot point, no public renunciation of their past, but where is the condemnation of that party?  Instead many SDA's vote strictly Democrat even though they are the party of abortion, the legalized murder of unborn children. 

The facts do not fit the statement the church made.  And that puts the church in a very difficult position.  Oh, it may be a very popular political position right now, but that does not make it the right position. 

[Gary K]

13 hours ago, Geoarrge said:

 Spencer has been running the National Policy Institute and Radix Journal for a few years now.  I believe you are referring to Jason Kessler, who fits those details.

Yeah.  You're right.  I don't know how I got the two mixed up but I sure did. 

[CoAspen]

Facts are so easy to find, wonder why many people find it difficult!

Quote

http://www.newsweek.com/clinton-kkk-byrd-trump-652176

Quote

"It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me, and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career and reputation," Byrd wrote in his 2005 autobiography. "I displayed very bad judgment, due to immaturity and a lack of seasoned reasoning."

Before his death, in 2010, Byrd was the longest-serving senator in the country’s history. Throughout his career he made many attempts to amend for drawing in 150 members to the Klan, and for attaining the position of “Exalted Cyclops.”

Those attempts led the National Associated for the Advancement of Colored People to issue a statement in praise of Byrd upon his death, and for Clinton, when she was secretary of state at the time, to comment on his passing. She started the video commemoration by saying, “Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd.” Clinton also said that Byrd had been “the heart” of the U.S. Senate.

Still, unlike white supremacist and former Klan leader David Duke—who praised Trump following the president's press conference Tuesday—Byrd renounced his experience with the hate group.

"But, the KKK is a Democrat brainchild.  They formed it.  They pushed it."

The above statement bears a strikeing similarity to recent comments made by a politician  and have been recanted. See the following article. 

Quote

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/10/stephen-martin/state-sen-stephen-martin-says-democratic-party-cre/

"The members of the Democratic party are the only ones of any political party to have ever owned slaves."

The above statement is a twist of truth. The parties of the past have changed much from their beginnings and early party affiliations were often ambiguous.  A simple Google search and reading of historical data will show this to be true. It is not hard to find and one could assume from the above statement that it may be posted for inflammatory purposes. It is typical of rhetoric designed to marginalize and separate people. Truth is important. I find much in the above post to be untruthful and continueing to slander the .org and SDA's/people with different opinions. 

 

[CoAspen]

This topic and its comments need to be in the Political Forum, at least.