Libertarian capitalists say the Apostles failed

The libertarian capitalists who call themselves Christians believe that the Apostles were wrong to live as communists. The capitalists say that those Apostles failed. According to the capitalists, when the Apostles said that "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common," those Apostles were misguided.

Real ownership

Possession and ownership are two different things within the context above. Possession in the context above means what one has. It doesn't mean that the possession is property that belongs to the one possessing it. Within Christianity (real Christianity), possessions belong to the whole. The whole allows the use of property. The whole is God. God is the one who owns the property. Christians are one with God. Those who don't agree are not one with God, not Christians, don't share in the ownership, and have misappropriated that which they possess.

It isn't complicated. It is very straight forward and strait, narrow, upright, and strict. The inference is exact. It comes out of the austerity of God. The standard is correct. The measuring rod is accurate. The scales are just. This is the economy of Christianity.

Know them

Those who don't like it, those who don't love it, hate it and syncretistically flock together. You have heard the expression that "birds of a feather flock together." You have also heard the expression that "you shall know them by their fruit." Who are the libertarian capitalists? What are their feathers? What are their fruits?

The Cato Institute is supported by those who want promoted what they imagine is in their best selfish interest. That self is not God.

They are anti-communists. They are anti-Apostles. It is why they preach and teach and lead against those Apostles. They preach against Jesus. They are antichrists.

The capitalists are for private property that is sole ownership apart from God, not just possession allowed of God. They include money in with this private property. They assert the falsehood that it is their right to acquire and hoard and to do with as they alone see fit even if what they see fit is harmful to the house. It is inappropriate to Heaven. It doesn't really exist.

No loopholes in the New Commandment

Some libertarians attempt to refine their arguments seeking out loopholes in the seamless law of the New Commandment that is to love one another as one (as Jesus loved his disciples). However, those loopholes they promulgate are as the unfulfilled law before Jesus came. They fail the hypocrisy test.

Christianity is Heaven

Christianity is about Heaven. It isn't about arguing away the words, teachings, example, and thrust of Jesus Christ. Christianity is about bringing forth Heaven on Earth. Earth is understood within a particular context.

Translating the New Heaven and New Earth

The world as manifest is the Earth. When the manifestation that is the world changes in minds, the Earth changes. The Earth will become new. It will have converted. It will have been translated. It will have been recycled into something else that will be the New Earth. It will have conflated with the New Heaven. This is the teaching of Jesus Christ. We believe it. Those who do not, do not believe in Jesus Christ. They believe in something else that is a figment of their imaginations.

Cato Institute: Evil spirit

So, who started the Cato Institute and who are the supporters of the libertarian capitalists? What do they bring forth that defines them?


Tobacco tells you essentially everything you need to know in terms of sizing up (measuring the standards) and weighing the hearts of the libertarian capitalists.

Wide path

How do they couch this? Their mission they write is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by seeking greater involvement of the "lay public in questions of public policy and the role of government."

Let's parse that in light of our awareness that the interest of the tobacco industry is a defining spirit of the people of the Cato Institute, including its supporters. Broaden here means the wide, and parameters means path boundaries. Therefore, they want to widen the path. This is the opposite of the narrow way. Public means minds, hearts, and souls. Policy means direction. So we see that the libertarian capitalists see to direct souls unto the wide path against Jesus's narrow way.


Tobacco is highly addictive, very harmful, even cancer causing, extremely wasteful and selfish, and therefore evil to promote, sell, buy, smoke, and chew and such. The tobacco industry is the pusher. The libertarians say everyone has a right to be addicted to whatever. Some libertarians attempt to balance that off the rights of others as they define those rights. However, that is not the Christian issue.

Jesus did not coerce. An addict or a pusher who will not repent and convert is left behind. He is not forced. That's real libertarianism. However, Jesus made clear that that refusal was and is sin and damnable to some degree. That's where the so-called right of the pusher and victim spills harm.

Christian warning against the Cato Institute

It is not to be allowed to pass without the Christian warning the flock. The flock will hear that warning and heed and steer clear of tobacco addiction and the marketing and provisioning of the same (profiting off sheer evil — the opposite of mercy).

Tobacco as pushed is harmful. It is offense. That is why it is sin for those who know it is harmful.

The Cato Institute is not about clarifying sin. It is about obfuscating. It is about broadening the parameters of public-policy debate to allow consideration of what?

U.S. founded on error

"Traditional American principles of limited government" means the view of the so-called Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an antichrist reaction (without moving toward God and Jesus) to other antichrists. In a nutshell, it held forth (and the self-styled libertarians hold forth) that Christian miracles are unreasoned or against reason. That of course is nonsense. It is the teaching of the false one who misleads into Hell. Ron Paul has fallen for all of this false libertarianism, obviously, and is pushing it mightily.

God's government is unlimited and regulates everything via the voluntary compliance of the Christian conscience under the New Commandment, by definition.

The founders of The United States of America, out of their reaction to the apostate Roman Catholic Church and Anglican Church and in their desires concerning sole-self-interest (private property), brought forth not Christianity but just another version of apostasy.

Real right reasoning

Their individual liberty is their assertion of their right to rebel against God's government. That so-called right is rewarded by Hell. That's reasoned. Their free market is their assertion of their right to not be constrained under God. Their peace is their short-sighted confusion and belief that they can have their rebellion and not end up in a state that is the very opposite of peaceful.

Their mission statement is designed to tempt the people to fall into the clutches of the pushers.

Dodging, not debating

Their policy debate is no debate, because they don't debate. They dodge to avoid conceding. It is cheating. That's where their hearts are. They consider those among them who dodge and duck best to be their champions. However, the right person doesn't have to dodge or duck to not be hit. Jesus didn't dodge or duck and was never hit in this context. He was never shown to be wrong, never. He never took an honest hit. It was, and remains, impossible to deal a real blow to the truth. By dishonestly hitting Jesus and by refusing to answer and acknowledge the truth of what he said and did, the adversary lost.

His opponents, his enemies, who ended up murdering him because they could not win the arguments and lost before the people, dodged and ducked his points and questions the answers to which would have revealed, but their dodging and ducking also revealed them and reveals them now.

Ultra-rich in falsehood

The founders of the Cato Institute, Edward H. Crane and David H. Koch, were and are funded. Follow the money. It leads to the ultra-rich. Who are they? They are those Isaiah called the churls (the stingy who don't bring forth bounty but death). They are those about whom Jesus talked.

When they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

He that layeth up treasure for himself ... is not rich toward God.

Is that clear and plain enough?

The more treasure is laid up for self, the worse it becomes. The more one wants it, the worse it becomes.

Real riches

Those who, however, help to bring forth treasure for the lambs and sheep of God are rich toward God. That's the Commons.

That's good shepherding. That's good stewardship of the house. That's good economics. It also flows beyond the flock to feed others the real bread (that spirit).

Mary raised Jesus with the words, "the rich he hath sent empty away."

Anyone who argues against this is by definition antichrist. If he hears it and rejects it, he shall not enter in. That's how it is. It is that way for the sake of righteousness.

Who are these rich ones? They are those who possess much money or who in spirit want to and who disagree with Jesus. They don't want the real bread. They want their false bread here and now, and to hell with the consequences.

They neither know the true meaning of private property nor liberty. In Heaven, there is no private property as they define property. There is no liberty as they have defined it. To bring Heaven here is to eliminate such money and property and licensing from the heart.

They have lost. They have been lost since the beginning. They have one real choice and that is to turn and repent or face their spiritual father who is Satan.

Christianity not for sale for falsehood

They cannot buy Christianity even though they try. It isn't for sale for money. Souls who convert, convert everything. They switch sides. They come into the Christianity that is the Commons that is Heaven. It is spiritual and they bring it forth on Earth.

Heaven: Cooperative collective

Christians are not individualists as defined by the self-styled libertarians. They do not subscribe to that individualism. Christians hold that the individual serves and is served by all other individuals in a collective whole that is the state of God.

Not on the false spectrum

This is not Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, or any of the other false attempts that come out of the antichrists and atheists. It couldn't be more different from that and from anarcho-capitalism.

Christianity isn't of that spectrum.

That spectrum is entirely of the goats.

Right economics

Economics is handling the household. What is the house? How is it being handled? How should it be handled? The house is the world and even the whole cosmos and existence. This Earth is being handled terribly, and the spirit of the libertarian capitalists is part of the problem, not the solution. It ought to be handled by everyone adhering to the New Commandment.

Choose Christ, not Murray Rothbard

One can be a disciple of the antichrist Murray Rothbard or of Jesus Christ, but not both. Murray said, "Lysander Spooner and Benjamin T. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers...." Where is Jesus? Spooner was a deist, as were Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin and on and on. They were not Christians. They rejected Jesus Christ the miracle worker. Spooner was also militant.

Christians know that Jesus was and is the unsurpassed political philosopher. Jesus's political economy is best. Rothbard rejected Christ. What else do you need to know? Was Rothbard of the fold? No. Was he shepherding correctly? No. Ought one to follow his teachings? No. Was he in error and false? Yes.

It all comes down to the twisting of ownership. It comes down to the selfish versus unselfish. The selfish come down on Rothbard's side. The unselfish side with Jesus.

No free love

Benjamin Tucker was a free-love advocate and an advocate of militant (violent) resistance as opposed to the irrefutable teaching of Christ. While no one has a monopoly on the mundane definition of free love that is constantly morphing in the aggregate mind of human kind, free love means fornication, which Jesus expressly stated is sin. It is without sanctification. It is rebellion against God. There are only right reasons why that is so.

Was Tucker arguing against coercion or against sexual harmlessness and for fornication? He argued against coercion but also for fornication. Free love is an anarchist tenet. It is antichrist. It is a selfish desire to allow for unbridled sexual lust. It is harmful. It is the self (necessarily apart from God) willing and even desirous of inflicting and spreading the disease that is unbridled sexual lust for the sake of sexual release despite harm. This direction leads to libertinism and antinomianism. It regressively promotes the concept that what is harmful is not. It continually works to widen the path and make crooked.

Free love into the bottomless pit

It leads to a reduction in proper inhibitions. It leads to bisexuality, homosexuality, incest, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, transsexualism, pornography addiction, and on and on. The line of propriety is moved out and out and out leading to greater and greater harm and evil consequences.

Free love was one of the downfalls of the ostensibly peaceful Hippy movement, for instance. Also, addictive substances caused the downfall. Greed and violence followed the free love and addictive drugs, naturally. The culture of greed led many out and into the Yuppie movement, which was no radical change but only a shrinking back from some aspects while actually enhancing other evil aspects. Selfishness was at the root of the cause of the downfall and the rise of Yuppiedom.

In addition, Tucker called violent defense useful, desirable, and a commodity that the so-called market should control. He was against Jesus's message of love as being incompatible with justice. He didn't understand Jesus. He rejected Jesus. He was an atheist to his death. Now he's deader than he was when he was walking and talking on the Earth. How can it be otherwise in the eyes of a Christian?

This is an issue of direction. It is an issue of temptation that leads to further falling away from the teachings of Jesus Christ concerning marriage and homosexuality, etc. The antichrists constantly seek the relaxation of the New Commandment. Don't fall for it.

They will build up one side and tear down the other while the right thing is to tear down completely and rebuild wholly and Holy new: Perfection.

So, here you have Rothbard touting militants and a free-love advocate and all centering on a private-property notion with money being the central issue. That stands in stark contrast with the message of Jesus Christ, which was and is anti-militant and anti-free love and anti-private ownership and money as those things were defined by Rothbard and are defined by the libertarian, antichrist capitalists and their disciples.

Wrong labor theory of value

Unlike libertarian capitalists, Christians enter into each other's labors.

Christians don't share the labor theory of value with any other schools of thought. What value was there in the loaves and fishes from whose labor? Who possessed the loaves and who owned them and why?

Proving there is no such thing as a libertarian-capitalist Christian

The spirit of Christ is as Jesus said, And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.

That teaching exactly defeated the libertarian capitalists who were there then deceiving the people. The serpent was there. It also enlightens the wise concerning the parable. ...thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. Whose harvest is it? To whom does the result of the labor belong? We share in Heaven. The servant labors that others may eat.

So, the libertarian capitalists hear the word but hide it and go about their business, because Jesus has no right to the fruits of their labors, they think. They don't labor for him or in his field sowing or reaping for the sake of the many. They don't give over and bring forth. Amen. They don't interpret spiritually but only mundanely. They don't see the Church as Jesus.

Paul: Lesser light than Jesus

That's why they hear only Paul's voice about being a burden or not, as if Jesus was a burden. It is why they hear Paul saying if one doesn't work, he doesn't eat. However, Jesus ate and was fed and worked, but not as Paul. This is not to say that working making tents or sails is evil. It is to say that it is wrong to mistake spreading the word with being a burden to those who sow. The sowers and reapers are not a burden to one another. That burden notion is evil. It was a bad seed. It has raised up a weed and is rejected in the New Heaven.

Fruits of labor: Common good and level

In Christianity, all work for the common purpose with not all doing exactly the same task in bringing forth. Jesus did not sow the seed of the bread for the flesh that he ate. It was purchased with money given to his disciples in the furtherance of Jesus's ministry (the most valuable work). That money was earned by others but belonged to the cause. That's why those givers gave. That's how they shared in Jesus's sowing. Jesus reaped it and he worked mightily casting a different kind of seed for a different harvest and bread but analogously understood.

He was sent into the worldly system that still is, which he came and defeated. The beginning of the end was when he went to the cross.

Heaven: No right to do wrong, no competition

Also in Heaven, no one asserts the right to do wrong. It is Satan who asserts that falsehood. In Heaven everyone is free from wrong. There is also no competition. There is only cooperative service where the least are raised up.


Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

That field is Heaven. Bring forth on Earth as in Heaven. Buy the Christian Commons to feed the lambs and sheep. Understand the real context and connotation of buying. Where is your heart? Is it showing in joining yourself to the labor of feeding the lambs and sheep, or do you believe the falsehood that is your right to hold what you are calling your private property apart from God, hogging the fruits of your labor?

Help the movement of bringing forth. Give to the Christian Commons Project to further this message and to translate the money out of its evil system. Continue down this column to below the comment section to the section entitled, "The Righteous Appeal to Softening Hearts," and please tithe or better now if possible.

Links on Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard:

GOPUSA ILLINOIS Daily Clips - November 11, 2007
by Dave Diersen
... the religious right is up for grabs, and all of the Republican candidates, except perhaps the libertarian maverick US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, appear eager to grab it. The first rule of politics is: Thou shalt not divide thy base. ...

Ron Paul and the Reconfiguration of the State
by Darrell Dow
The major political movements of our day (ie conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, etc.) are all bastard children of the Enlightenment, grounded in secular premises. They are anti-Christian at root. The reigning faith of our age is ...

Ron Paul and the Reconfiguration of the State
by Darrell
The major political movements of our day (ie conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, etc.) are all bastard children of the Enlightenment, grounded in secular premises. They are anti-Christian at root. ...

Supporters of the long-shot Republican primary campaign of libertarian Representative Ron Paul may remember Guy Fawkes as a wildly successful fund-raising gimmick. On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $2.8 ...

Presidential Election 2008
by Mark
His last name is Paul. That's a fine Christian name. His website looks nice. Very Presidential...
I'm a native of the American South (North Carolina to be precise), and as a good southern boy I am inclined to libertarian politics. Dr. ...

Mitt Romney, A Conservative By Name Only?
by Mark
I sure hope the libertarian wing of the Republican party gains more prominence in the future, because the candidates being offered by the Republican mainstream seem to be getting worse and worse. I personally think that the "religious ...

Ron Paul and the anti-war Republicans
by Minstrel Boy
He is a libertarian who opposes most government spending on principle. In this he is closer to the leave-me-alone types who dominate talk radio than to the conservative ideologues the other candidates are so eager to line up. ...

Internet Phenoms: Ned Lamont and Ron Paul
by Genghis Conn
The Paul campaign stems from the belief, held by conservatives of a libertarian bent, that the Republican Party has strayed dangerously from its old positions of smaller government, low taxes, drastically reduced spending and ...

Pat Robertson still does not speak for me!
by Pastor Gavin
I agree with Ron Paul about this. I have enjoyed watching him in the Republican debates because he has spoken truth about the situation in Iraq. But I could never vote for Ron Paul, because I really disagree with his libertarian views ...

A thinking delima
by Phelan
I saw an interview with Ron Paul the other night. He was talking about how he was against certain things, yet he respected other's opinion in the matters, and he would consider them. He also said that the Constitution of the United ...

Ron Paul - Hoax?
by Concerned Citizen
Ron Paul is a libertarian when it is in his interest. He's a Christian first. As a result he wants gay marriage and abortion to be banned. His default argument is that he doesn't want the Federal Government to do anything but rather ...

Ron Paul, Another Round of SSDW
by Apollo 13
Sara added an update that pointed to a Libertarian-Patriot Banquet on April 2, 2004, in which Ron Paul reaffirmed his wacky ideological bent. TPM noted Paul's nuttiness in print. Liberal Values added more details. ...

Grant money for chapel restoration (The Salinas Californian)
by Administrator
What's behind Ron Paul's huge '08 fundraising haul (The Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo! News) Suddenly, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has become a money-making machine. As of 11:44 Wednesday morning, ...

What's behind Ron Paul's huge '08 fundraising haul (The Christian ...
The Christian Science Monitor - Suddenly, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has become a money-making machine. As of 11:44 Wednesday morning, the libertarian-leaning, "get out of Iraq now" congressman from Texas had pulled in ...

Say What?
by Angela
Ron Paul is just crazy enough to be interesting, he wants to get rid of the IRS and disband the Department of Education to name a few. So with him you figure if he goes in with such drastic change on the agenda that he might at least ...

Rudy's part in the Search for a Red November
by Douglas V. Gibbs
Then there is the Libertarian that thinks he is a Republican. What about him? What about Ron Paul and this rabid Ron Paul Revolution? His followers are ardent, able to create a day for the record books recently by raising $4.2 million ...

Political Quote of the day
by pittcaleb
For the record, I am an Evangelical / Pentecostal / Conservative Christian. I consider my political leanings to be a blend of Conservatism and Libertarianism. I do not support the GOP / Republican Congress or Senate of the first 6 years ...

by Pain
Ten minutes after that, I will get stern warning letters from pro-family leaders, concerned about Ron Paul's libertarian leanings and encouraging extreme caution. Virulent emails come through daily warning about Romney's Mormonism and ...

The Possibility of Ron Paul winning as an independent
But the Ron Paul decides to run as an independent. Since he is the only candidate who is against abortion - he gets the Christian right votes. He gets the libertarian and people who are most concerned about civil liberties votes. ...

GLBT DIGEST November 7, 2007
by Ray Rideout and Michael Cooper
(Washington) Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by anextraordinary outpouring of Internet support, has hauled in more than $3.5million in 20 hours. Paul, the Texas congressman with a Libertarian tilt and an ...

Nov. 5 effort impresses with $4m raised online for Ron Paul
The outbreak Paul reflects, in part, the success of the Internet by providing a "instead " for like-minded people to find each other and interact. In particular, "y 'a heavy libertarian strain in the high-tech community ...

Ron backlash wrong
by pro2
Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been ...

Appeal To My Fellow Pastors ~ Chuck Baldwin
by Steven (website manager for
Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a ...

What Do They Stand For?
by Mr. Cooper
I find it odd that many, many young people have found their candidate of choice in a 72 year old conservative-libertarian. Here's what I'd like to know: what percentage of people who support Ron Paul actually know what he stands for? ...

Ron Paul's Haul
by Lew Rockwell
Writes Linda Feldmann in the Christian Science Monitor: "Suddenly, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has become a money-making machine. As of 11:44 Wednesday morning, the libertarian-leaning, "get out of Iraq now" congressman ...

What's behind Ron Paul's huge '08 fundraising haul
-Christian Science Monitor. Washington - Suddenly, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has become a money-making machine. As of 11:44 Wednesday morning, the libertarian-leaning, "get out of Iraq now" congressman from Texas had ...

What's behind Ron Paul's huge '08 fundraising haul - Christian ...
huge '08 fundraising haul Christian Science Monitor, MA - 26 minutes ago Washington - Suddenly, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has become a money-making machine. As of 11:44 Wednesday morning, the libertarian-leaning, ... ...

What's behind Ron Paul's huge '08 fundraising haul - Christian ...

Christian Science Monitor, MA - 22 minutes ago Washington - Suddenly, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has become a money-making machine. As of 11:44 Wednesday morning, the libertarian-leaning, ...

Ron Paul Envisions Liberty-oriented Republican Party
by A Christian Prophet
(Read entire article: Unwelcome guest crashes own party ) Ron Paul likes to make one thing perfectly clear: he is a Republican. Yes, he abandoned the Republican Party and ran as the Presidential Candidate of the Libertarian Party twenty ...

by helm inggris ...
videos for Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden). [34] [35] Third Party presidential candidates have also made extensive use of YouTube. Libertarian Steve Kubby's campaign debuted a short animated film, ...

EasyRSS: Clipmarks | Live Clips
by Olympia Viet Nam
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours. Paul, the Texas congressman with a Libertarian tilt and an ...

The George Wallace Libertarian
by theoretic
fundamentalist Christian nation, by all means join Ron Paul's ongoing funds drive. If not, perhaps it's time to reconsider your candidate. Wallace ran as an American Independent, splintering from the Democratic Party. ...

more from a political insider on Ron Paul...

by Eric Schansberg
All the press attention over the past few weeks has been on the possibility of Christian conservatives rallying behind a third-party candidate should the GOP nominate Rudy Giuliani. But the party's growing libertarian-leaning wing could ...

Remembering the Fifth of November as a Victory for Ron Paul, But ...

by Ron Chusid
While Paul has many negatives, including many non-libertarian ideas, these are barely a problem in the Republican race where the other candidates share many of these views. Beyond the Republican nomination battle, Paul presents problems ...

After Action Report: Navy Makes It Five in a Row
Anyway, it seems clear to everyone, including Sullivan (and CATO, and Ron Paul, for that matter), what libertarian ideas are. It's entirely less clear that Putz, the neoconservative Bush follower, does.....

1897: Strange Tales of Highbinders and Child Actors
Furthermore, this county has launched the careers of Ron Paul, Phil Gramm and Tom DeLay, and "every elected countywide office in Fort Bend County is held by Republicans, who also control a majority of precinct-based positions". ...

Ron Paul's 'money bomb,' records and lessons - Baltimore Sun
by admin
by Mark Silva Ron Paul, the libertarian/Republican/anti-Iraq-war candidate for president, has declared "a day for the record books. Ron Paul's Really Big Haul Liberty Papers Ron Paul Raises $3.68 Million on Guy Fawkes Day New York Times ...

Yes, This Post is About Ron Paul
by bfrantz
Paul is also a Christian, devoted husband, loving grandfather and a genuine, h
nest guy who's in politics because he believes in the principals of freedom, not because he has a bloated ego or lust for power. I truly believe Ron Paul is ...

Our Longest Blog Ever For Ron Paul who raised $4M in just one day!
by Jacques
the only way the democrats will have any chance of losing the next election is if ron paul is who they are going against. a great election would be between ron paul and Al Gore!!!! Posted By christian, selden, ny : October 3, ...

Ron Paul: Hope or Hype?
by Abel Tomlinson
Paul's biggest flaw is economic libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy emphasizing individual freedom. Obviously, basic individual freedoms are essential for democracy like freedoms of religion, speech, ...

by twsevangeline
Itty Bitty Dentist-Dude Ron Paul postures as the "libertarian" - but he opposes a woman's right to choose. PHONY! Mitt Romney stood there in his itchy Mormon underwear and kept insisting that he will veto budget items despite what we ...

Ron Paul: This is November 5th
by patel1946
Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian, but he's a strange sort of libertarian. For example, he doesn't believe you have a Constitutional right to privacy. In practical terms, this means he not only favors overturning Roe v. ...

Re: Do this test to see which candidate fits your thoughts
Dr. Ron Paul is an honest to god Libertarian. Thinks the others are all sellouts to the Christian Right and the Cheney Neocons or, in Rudy and and Mitt's cases, big-government liberals dressed up as Republicans. ...

Links on Murray Rothbard:

The Postwar Renaissance I: Libertarianism
by Matt Goldseth
By Murray N. Rothbard, posted on Ludwig von Mises Institute website An excerpt from the book entitled, "The Betrayal of the American Right", Murray Rothbard revisits his philosophical development within ...

Failing To Discern and Confront Evil
by Novakeo
My accuser, who is a well educated, smart, and informed Libertarian, has listed several of the bright stars of the Libertarian movement. Libertarians revere Rothbard and Mises as wise, saintly, and almost god-like. ...

[ZOMIFLA] Digest Number 918
by Tungnung Zhou
Lear*<; The Center for Libertarian Studies <; (venerates *Murray Rothbard*), Founder: *Burton S. Blumert * Radio Free Europe/Radio ...

For a person so thoroughly and aptly identified in ideological ...
by crusader88
... which in its lukewarm forms is illogical (and often, as in the Cato Institute and Libertarian party un-Christian), and in its radical form is unacceptable and effectively leads to extreme leftism (although Rothbard calls himself a ...

Thinking Seriously
It is an esoteric/exoteric distinction, common in cults, as Murray Rothbard pointed out.) Because of the nature of complexity, and the complexity of human psychology, it is obvious that people can get caught up in these errors ...

The Conservative Intellectual Uprising
by Joseph Stromberg
And lest anyone imagine that his comments were just the latter-day grumblings of a quasi-libertarian, I note that, introducing the first issue of Modern Age, Russell Kirk wrote, "Mr. Morley's essay, in particular, may stir up a healthy ...

What does it mean to be conservative?
by CatholicLibertarian
I also began to read such great libertarian works like "Power and Market" by Murray Rothbard. I came to realize the clarity of the free market and of Austrian economics. I also began to realize that things such as drug prohibition and ...

WW II: The Nadir of the Old Right
by gunnyg
During World War II, I was an undergraduate at Columbia University, and it seemed to my developing conservative and libertarian spirit that there was no hope and no ideological allies anywhere in the country. ...

Laissez Faire Books, RIP
by Morgan
An Enemy of the State The Life of Murray N. Rothbard by Justin Raimondo From the Fountainhead to the Future: And Other Essays on Art and Excellence by York, Alexandra Antidote Essays against the Socialist Indian State by Sauvik ...


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 Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • WT

      Communism is acceptable within the church as long as it is voluntary!!!!!!! Forced communism is the most failed govornment system ever tried.

    • Hello WT,

      Just to clarify:

      Nothing in the Real Liberal Christian Church is acceptable unless it is voluntary. The only exception concerns protecting children while they are in their impressionable years. All forced government is failure, period. It's why Satan is a failure, and God is not.

      Real, liberal, Christian communism is absolutely voluntary. Anyone who doesn't want to live according to how Jesus and his closest disciples lived (out of one purse with all holding all things as community property) as the Christian example does not have to be a member of the Church. The Church doesn't force anyone. There is no coercion in the real Church. There is no punishment in the real Church. All are free to be members or not. All are free (in that sense) to err and be forced Capitalists as a false alternative for instance (self-centered and falsely imagining that one holds anything as sole private property rather than everything belonging to God and therefore God's Holy Church: The whole real congregation).

      "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." — Acts 2:44-45.

      "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." — Acts 4:32.

      That's how it is. That's part of the requirement for having the Christian spirit.

      Not all can do it instantly, but they are wholeheartedly for it.

      God bless you and yours,

      Tom Usher

    • Digg Comments as of Friday, February 15, 2008, 01:50 PM PST.

      by RofLmaonnaise on 11/13/2007

      Ron Paul worked in a church hospital as a doctor and would take care of people for free if they couldn't pay. I guess Paul has done a little sharing in his time. Oh wait, he returns the unused portion of his Congressional budget to the Treasury? I guess a little bit of sharing there too. Wait a minute, he was against the taxpayer unconstitutionally funding a gold medal for Rosa Parks, but he said he'd pay 100 dollars out of his own pocket if the rest of the House would too. After no one accepted, his point was well made that it's easier for Congress to spend other people's money. Again, he participates in sharing his own money.

      In conclusion, Paul is a dishonest capitalist.

      by TomUsher on 02/14/2008

      The issue of the article is Christianity, and that's consistency. Is your comment on subject? "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (Acts 4:32)

      Ron Paul says he's a Christian. Is he for or against how the Apostles lived with Jesus Christ? If he is, let him say so.

      Jesus lived with his disciples out of one purse. If you don't like that, how can you like Jesus? If you don't like Jesus, well what's the matter with you?

      Reply to this comment

      by afruff23 on 11/13/2007

      You don't understand the concept of giving do you? Giving is good when it is voluntary. Forcing people to do things is different from voluntary shared ownership.

      by TomUsher on 02/14/2008

      There is nothing in the article about forcing anyone to do anything. Did you read it? If you did, try again.

      Reply to this comment

      by Kwashiorkor on 11/13/2007

      Yes, the Apostles were wrong in this. It failed miserably, like every other trial of communism in human history. What about it?

      Pretty funny that you're selling capitalist Google ad space on your communist web page.

      by TomUsher on 02/14/2008

      Read the article. It contains a long list of communist examples that have been in some cases so successful that capitalists, in total fear, pushed to suppress the people voluntarily living together with all things common. You've been duped by false propaganda. It shows clearly in this statement you've made, "It failed miserably, like every other trial of communism in human history." That statement is repeated and repeated. It is a prime example of the "Big Lie" method (just repeat it enough and people will accept it.) Again, read the article. Visit the links to the sites of tens of thousands of people living very successfully communistically. Are you confusing Marxism with Christianity? Don't do that.

      Also, where did you get this idea that the Apostles failed? James, the brother of Jesus, was right there in Jerusalem up until he was murdered. That doesn't indicate communist failure. That's another libertarianism that is repeated and repeated without any grounds.

      Jesus called money "unrighteous." He accepted money from donors. Do you think that was hypocritical of him? As I have gone to great lengths to explain on the website http://(," target="_blank">(, the Church is about translating money out of the system of selfishness into the unselfish system where the poor Church may own the land again to, among other things, grow food to feed the lambs and sheep (children) of God. The Commons was stolen at the point of a sword by so-called feudal nobles after all. It was the inheritance of all until the greedy stole it militaristically. Do you disagree with that?

      Most Americans donating to any cause in America do so out of capitalistic earnings. That doesn't render the cause capitalistic. The Church is non-profit. You should understand the distinction.

      I don't own the means of production the profit from which I claim as my sole private property. The Church does not seek to gain capital to invest in any such manner. The Church is not capitalistic. It isn't interested in amassing capital to invest in capitalistic (selfish) enterprises at all.

      The aim is to regain the land (by buying it back, which it shouldn't even have to do) given to the Church (the people) by God and to share with the whole body of Christ for the glory of God and the benefit of the many, non-Christians included, even those calling themselves our enemies, not for capitalistic profits or capitalistic empire building or anything of the kind.

      by TomUsher on 02/15/2008

      I wrote above, "Read the article. It contains a long list of communist examples...." The article to which I am referring as of the date of this comment is, "The Christian Commons Project™." ( ... )

      It has particular sections entitled "Community Property Works" and "Just a Few of the Many Established Communities of Various Types" that contain the specifics.

      There are many other examples on the Internet. A simple search will result in thousands of useful links. For the sake of souls, you need to stop spreading disinformation and half-truths. Support the whole truth who is Jesus Christ.

      by TomUsher on 02/15/2008

      Even though I am not using any HTML or other tags, Digg has so far rendered the URL's as not usable links or with truncated addresses. ...


      by PeppermintPig on 11/13/2007

      Cato has been subverted by individuals who support neo-con positions. I would not look to them or any particular group as a paragon of libertarian beliefs. The core of the philosophy is the non-aggression principle and a respect for individualism.

      People who want to live a communistic lifestyle should be free to do so, but not at the expense of others. And if we must insert Christian doctrine into the argument, then I will only add that without freedom of choice, there can be no virtuous act, nor can there be any legitimate claim as made by a group, such as the premise that possessions belong to the whole with the intent of benefiting a 'greater good'. This undermines the moral schema of Christianity altogether!

      by TomUsher on 02/14/2008

      Christianity itself is freely chosen. Christianity and community property, however, are ultimately inseparable. God shares all with Jesus. Jesus and his followers are one. God shares all with the followers of Jesus. God owns everything. The followers of Jesus are the rightful heirs of the whole. No one within this spiritual body rips off a piece of territory to say to the others that it's mine and not yours. That's un-Christian. There is no property in Heaven as the libertarians define property. There is no sole ownership apart from the whole, including apart from God. There is no money in Heaven. There is no capitalism. There is no selfishness, greed, violence, depravity, or coercion. We Christians pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Hence we pray for the end of capitalism and all for which it stands.

      by syroncoda on 11/13/2007

      haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! this is ***** brilliant! you should do comedy! hollywood would lap this up like those pitiful sheep down at the local ..... hmmm. no nevermind.

      Reply to this comment

    • Andreas Leiningen

      @Tom Usher - Tom, this website is one of the most outrageous thing's I've ever read. Let's say that you're right and that Murray Rothbard (one of the greatest proponents of freedom in American history)is somehow an 'antichrist' as are all the other freedom loving economists of the varying schools of economic thought. Maybe you're right that the Founding Fathers were deists and not true Christians. Maybe you're right that it's all anti-faith enlightenment stuff. Did you ever consider that since without the progress of capitalism the standard of living across the globe would be pitiful, all that would actually be a good thing. Before you start attacking Rothbard and Ron Paul, I think you should first convince people that Christianity is real and that god exists. If you do that- consider this. It doesn't matter if he exists or not. All that matters is whether he is a force for good or not- and if he's not, it is the duty of all just people to oppose him and his teachings as written in the bible. God is a construct of human minds- nothing more. He does not decide objectively what justice is- have you read the Old Testament? If that's what you consider justice than I call you a tyrant. If god was great and good as Christians assume, he would embrace the progress of capitalism and the fundamental liberty of all human beings to own property. As an atheist, if I turn out to be wrong and I come before god, the real criterion of his character is how he makes his judgment. What if I have not believed in him, have never believed in him, but have led an honest, caring, and moral life nonetheless? Am I damned whilst someone else whose deeds do not match mine but whose belief was firmer is saved?

    • @Andreas Leiningen -

      Hi Andreas,

      You may be surprised, but your comment made me smile and not in any belittling way toward you.

      Look, if you've read the site looking for the answers, you'll see that your idea of freedom and my idea of freedom are not the same. I say freedom is the absence of evil. I say God is free. Now, you also don't hold the same idea of God I hold. So, when you say "freedom loving economists," I know you are referring to people who are not freedom-loving economists because they don't know what freedom is, don't know what real love is, and don't understand economics at all. They do not know how to run the household (economics) that is the Earth, and frankly all of Creation.

      What Jesus demonstrated was real love. What he suggested and even commanded of his followers is the real way to be running things — the real way to be self-controlled. Your way can't hold a candle to his way, all the light in existence, where light is understood as the right way to be (behave, believe, etc).

      Do you really think that I haven't thought about capitalism versus a world where the spirit that brought it forth might never have existed? Please. Have you never considered what quality of life really means? What is the "standard of living" to which you are referring? It is a mixed bag, is it not? Of course it is. You can't get away with labeling abominations as mere externalities around here. How much pollution has capitalism wrought (aside from what coercive socialism has wrought too)? I'm writing about capitalism itself and not as the lesser of evils that capitalists seem always to want to use as a cover (even though I don't believe that it's some lesser of evils either). How many people have been made sick and have died terrible deaths as a result of the pollution spewed by capitalists, or do you hold that the polluters aren't real capitalists? You'll have an impossible time with that because capitalism is founded upon selfishness and pollution is allowed of the selfish heart — the more selfish, the more polluting in all respects.

      I don't buy into the Hobbesian. Life was nasty, brutish, and short where human beings were nasty and brutish in their hearts. Jesus leads me to know that it wasn't the case everywhere — that there have been righteous souls from the beginning in competition with those who hate righteousness. You apparently don't believe that. If that's not the case, please disabuse me of the thought. I would love it.

      As for Ron Paul, I am not attacking him unless you conclude that his positions are attacking me. He runs down my view with every speech he makes. He also claims my religion by name. That's awful. He holds with you, who profess atheism; yet, he claims to hold with me. It's ridiculous. I have more respect for those who admit atheism. How can you hold with him, when he claims Christianity? Why don't you call him on it. I have never seen one Libertarian tell all the so-called Christian libertarian capitalists that they are full of dung. Well, of course it's a rhetorical question, as I already know the answer. Nevertheless, you are welcome to attempt to justify your indefensible position.

      "I think you should first convince people that Christianity is real and that god exists." I convince the righteous, and it's God with a capital G, just as you capitalized Christianity as a proper noun, or are we abandoning capitalizing proper nouns now? (Ah, the degradation of everything that truly matters)

      I oppose certain of the mischaracterizations of God that are contained in the Old Testament; hence the New Testament. I'm a Christian. I'm not a Torah Jew. The Bible is an argument in itself over the nature of God. Jesus is not Moses. Jesus said no to the unfulfilled law of Moses. He fulfilled it, meaning he showed what Moses would loved to have been able to grasp and to show, only hearts were too hard, just as now and getting harder in many even as they are softening in others.

      What part of the Christian Commons Project do you oppose as a self-identified just person?

      "God is a construct of human minds- nothing more." Nothing more? What isn't a construct in your mind? What is the limit placed upon the constructs in our minds? Is there no such thing as a limitless construct of the mind that when translated into what you hold to be tangible brings forth what most would identify as Heaven on Earth?

      "...have you read the Old Testament?" Please, please!

      You want Heaven without even knowing what it is or how to get there. You want God to hand it to you no matter what you'd continue doing and fail to do. We have been given already this Earth. Look what the greedy, violent, and depraved have done with it and to it and to each other. Get rid of the greed, the self-centeredness, the violence, and the harmful, twisted sexuality, and watch the world be saved. You won't get there not knowing God. God saves. God is giving. People refuse what's offered. God is peace. People fight. God is sexually harmless. People turn to harmful confusion. You don't understand the definition that is God. You don't understand the construct. You're failing to comprehend. God is the word (words). You believe but just don't know how to make the connections.

      "The progress of capitalism," as I've stated and with which you cannot properly disagree, includes much evil that is not truly progress but rather backwards (a liability). God doesn't embrace the evil. It's not very bright of you to think God should. As for the "fundamental liberty of all human beings to own property," God does hold with that. We all own it all together. The whole Earth and Universe is a gift of God for all to possess and to own as one soul. That doesn't mean that there aren't individuals. It doesn't mean that individuals aren't given things to possess that others ought not to take away — things they need for the survival of the flesh. True family though, and the human race is one family whether or not you believe it, see to the needs of each other as they want their needs met (by God).

      Where do you think the air and sunlight and water and soil and seed and the rest comes from? It comes from what has given it. That's God, by definition. You eat what God has provided in the first position. Jesus teaches that the God-given inheritance of all the family members has been appropriated by evil (selfish) unGodly souls. He's right about that. How can you be so blind as to not see the plain truth of it?

      "As an atheist, if I turn out to be wrong and I come before god, the real criterion of his character is how he makes his judgment." What makes you think you'll be coming before God and not Satan if God exists?

      "What if I have not believed in him, have never believed in him, but have led an honest, caring, and moral life nonetheless?"

      If you hear the real definitions of "honest, caring, and moral" and ignore them, what will you have earned? If you live in this life and believe that you can be honest, caring, and moral and not give everything to help your brothers and sisters, you've had yours in this here and now. That's Jesus's position. What's unjust about it? You hold up nothing better.

      "Am I damned whilst someone else whose deeds do not match mine but whose belief was firmer is saved?" No. You're better off in your ignorance than is the one who claimed and really knew he or she was living a lie. Heaven and Hell are both absolute and relative. Yours will be the lesser of stripes on that score from Satan until you are saved by God.

      It this all still "one of the most outrageous thing's [you've] ever read"? Do some soul searching about just how selfish you're being. What are you doing that is wrong that you don't want to face? It's there.

      God bless you,

      Tom Usher

    • Andreas Leiningen

      Well you have put me in an impossible position- I tried to preserve some role for good that your absolute version of Christianity might play in human progress, but it seems that you have forced me into the corner. Essentially it all comes down to whether or not God (see i capitalized it, and I didn't mean not to the first time) actually exists. Of course, I have no problem arguing that he does not. The bible is a work of fiction, plain and simple. God didn't create the earth- that has been long discredited, leaving you with one option- to claim that the Book of Genesis is allegorical. Convenient if the bible can never be falsified- like Marxism. Here's the fundamental point. Morality is not an absolute derivative from your made up God. Justice, morality, truth, none of it stems from an immortal being. Your god and your religion is a human concoction . Yet you use this concoction to hold that capitalism has led the world astray. How? By allowing people to pursue and achieve their own individual ends instead of those written down in the bible by those who lived before them? In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that defending individual liberty by opposing government coercion makes Ron Paul an immoral person. I fear that our definitions of morality and justice will always be entirely different so long as you build upon the premises of the apostles as communists. It's good that this thing is all voluntary, but know that if the entire world were to adopt your principles, only the most fanatical dedication to aesthetic ideals would be able to overcome the immutable laws of sound economics. Danke schon und aufwiedersehen, meinen Herr.

    • Hi Again, Andreas,

      You made me smile again. No other Libertarian has done that even once that I can recall. I smiled at your capitalizing God.

      So, you believe that there was no actual, historical Jesus? You want proof? What sign(s) would satisfy you?

      As for the Genesis story, no one knows here and now. People only believe one way or another. You don't know the past before your memory. You don't know where you are? It's all relative. That's one connotation of the term "know." It's a philosophical term. I read Popper by the way. His idea of falsifiability is an article of faith every bit as much as any other "certainty." I'm not trying to be cryptic or esoteric here. The fact is that you can't disprove the most radical solipsism stating that you are the only thing that is real. You don't know that I am as you are. You don't experience being me. You can't be sure that I'm not a figment of your imagination. Yet, you want me to prove to you that God exists. How strange that comes across to me even though it's such an ordinary request.

      I definitely believe that the Genesis story is allegorical, but I also hold that there is much of what you would consider literal truth in it.

      Can libertarianism be falsified? Tell me how?

      If God doesn't exist, why do I experience what you would consider miracles? Why is it that when I ask a question, I'm supplied with answers that can't be coming from any source that doesn't know my mind better than I know it myself? Are there little green men in cloaked flying saucers with technology able to read my mind and give me thoughts and to control events out there and I'm just duped into thinking it's God who has been dealing with me directly? Am I delusional? I sure don't think so. (UPDATE: By the way, I'm not ruling out what is commonly meant by the term "intelligent extraterrestrial life." My point is that I believe in God the spirit being over everything, including any such "intelligent extraterrestrial life" no matter how technological.)

      Do I break the rules and tell you all about everything? No.

      How do you know the things you claim? I know you don't know because I am living proof. I've experience what is closed off to you. I can't show you what is closed to you. It's not possible. You can complain that that's just convenient for me, but actually it would be much easier for me were God to just give everybody the signs. However, it doesn't happen because it's been done enough to separate the sheep from the goats already. Afterall, Heaven won't be Heaven if everyone in it is recidivistic. People such as you are right now wouldn't hold onto the signs. You'd not be satisfied. This is something that just is beyond you. It's just the way it is. There's no point in my fighting with God to implant the spiritual conscience and consciousness of interconnectedness and interdependency in you. God has designed it such that souls have the free will to make mistakes. Will you learn? I don't know at this point. I'm not given to know that. You haven't asked. You aren't seeking. You don't knock at God's door. You think you already know what there is to know. Your brain matter just lacks what mine has. This is a physical and spiritual thing at the same time. If you were to care enough, you'd be given. How can you care to ask when you don't have what it takes to do that in earnest? We'll see whether you have enough to get rolling and if so how long you'll last.

      You don't believe that they spiked Jesus to the cross after beating and whipping him and then hanged him up to die. You don't believe that he was a total pacifist who warned against warring with Rome. You don't believe that anything can happen, or has ever happened, that isn't able to be duplicated via testing. For you, it's impossible for there to be any knowledge not the result of testing. You'll never know what you are missing. God doesn't show now to those who lack faith until it's too late for them.

      "I find it hard to believe that defending individual liberty by opposing government coercion makes Ron Paul an immoral person." You worked on that. You worked on it in hopes that it would be sufficient. Ron Paul has read the Gospels and professes belief. He does not confine himself to "defending individual liberty by opposing government coercion." He supports a whole host of mammon worshipping positions and violence. He supports all the antichrist nonsense even while claiming Christianity. You knew that's what I was saying, yet you've played a word game to justify yourself vis-a-vis Ron Paul. That's shameful. It doesn't surprise me though coming from someone who denies the teachings of Jesus.

      How can Ron Paul believe in the same law as you while you don't believe that Jesus's word is law? Don't play games about such things. This is serious stuff. Souls are on the line. If you play fast and loose in the face of this discussion, it will go worse for you. You'll mound up more stripes.

      "I fear that our definitions of morality and justice will always be entirely different so long as you build upon the premises of the apostles as communists." You hold that the Apostles didn't exist. The Bible is fiction to you. There were no Apostles to you because the Apostles knew and lived with Jesus Christ who you claim never existed. Perhaps you are holding that it was the Apostles who made up Jesus. Is that it? In any case, they'd be liars to you. What difference does it make to you whether or not they were or are communists? What's it to you?

      The "immutable laws of sound economics" are the laws handed down by Jesus Christ. Failing to adhere to the real law is the very reason the world is in such a mess. The real law is the ideal. Of course we are to be fanatically good. What do you think, you're going to be rewarded for being evil? Listen, God is merciful. Reward though isn't the same thing as being shown mercy. One may be rewarded with mercy; however, that introduces a different connotation and context. I can handle both.

      "meinen Herr" is a dangerous thing for you to be stating about me within the context of your comment. Be careful not to be flippant. There are lines.

      In spite of your words that are right on the edge where forgiveness will be long in coming if ever, may God have mercy on you and not leave you in the hands of demons too long.

      Tom Usher

    • Preparing the Arrival of the Antichrist.

      Worldwide Evil and Misery
      The Legacy of the 13 Satanic Bloodlines

      The book was BANNED in France.

      From the beginning of the world until now the foundation of the Satanic Religion, its basic doctrine has been the conviction that one day Satan will openly rule this world. His ruling and power, however, cannot be exercised by Satan himself as a visible person; for that purpose he constantly needs visible people. He preferably uses influential people that live in sin. With their help he is able to manipulate other people on a large scale. With the help of wilful politicians and other powerful people and organizations he is able to expand his doom scenario further and further. Satan’s elite make every effort to realize the establishment of a One-World dictatorship. As long as they consider the devil to be their god and believe that Satan’s ultimate goal is establishing a dictatorial world power, everybody on earth will experience the daily consequences of this.

      In short: in mockery and imitation of God’s ‘Twelve Tribes’, Satan also blessed ‘twelve bloodlines’. These Satanic bloodlines go back far before the birth of Christ. In today’s world these bloodlines can be found in several powerful and worldwide influential families. The members of these exclusive family dynasties belong to the leading Satanists of our world. They consider the devil to be the only and true god.

      Above the ‘twelve bloodlines’ is the 13th, or final, bloodline. This Satanic bloodline is copied after God’s royal lineage of Jesus. This bloodline was instilled with the direct seed of Satan. The Antichrist, who will become the visual world leader, will originate from this bloodline! This 13th Bloodline goes as far back as the Merovingians, the Sicambrians, the Greeks, the Roman Empire and the Tribe of Dan.

      At first this book evoked mixed feelings within me. On the one hand it is easy to read and through its large number of footnotes and source indications it is very well argued. On the other hand the author presents facts that sound so frightening that they make you quiver - for example the fact that worldwide one out of every five suicides concerns a ritual suicide (or murder). And that worldwide, thousands of babies and children become victim to Satanic Rituals every year! Such facts are hard to comprehend, and when I read that, I put the manuscript aside to do some research on the Internet. I came across the German site of Spiegel-Online which mentioned that three hundred children of poor London immigrants have vanished without a trace. At that moment I thought about the statistics that say that fifty thousand children and teenagers are reported missing every year in the United States - especially around Halloween…

      I arranged all the facts. Many facts known until now about secret societies and worldwide conspiracies actually fitted very well with the theories of Robin de Ruiter. And that is how I came to my most important consideration, namely why I think publishing this book is so important. Hundreds of titles about worldwide conspiracies have been published; many books overlap each other and many authors take a walk along the roads of fantasy. Robin de Ruiter, however, does not do this. He is able to grasp his theories and perceptions within a bigger plan. De Ruiter believes that the power of the ruling elite of our world originates from, and is identical to, the power of Satan. Moreover, that ‘Satan’s Empire’, of which the Bible speaks the Antichrist will rule, will be the inevitable outcome. Things such as globalisation, the developments in Israel and the Middle East, the fast arising observation of civilian conduct after 9/11 and, for example, the implantation of RFID-chips all of a sudden become pieces of a puzzle that fit perfectly within the images created by biblical prophecies of the signs of ‘The End of Times’. Suddenly the planned New World Order becomes religiously charged and day by day the connection between the modern globalisation and the biblical Antichrist becomes clearer. With this book Robin de Ruiter leaves nothing and nobody untouched. He reveals - by means of countless facts - the dishonourable procedures behind the scenes of world politics and the all-round presence of a powerful select ‘Elite’: The ‘Predecessors’ of the Antichrist.

      This book should be a challenge for anyone who dares to confront the truth and is open to candid discussion of every aspect of the subject matter. Nobody, and especially not the God-fearing people, can shut their eyes from the facts described in this book. They should recognise the signs of ‘The Last Days’, so that one day they will not be surprised by the announced events.

      This international bestseller has been translated into many languages and is available in more than 100 countries. Finally also in the United States.


      United States
      MANA" target="_blank">" target="_blank">

      Author: Robin de Ruiter
      Publisher: Mayra Publications
      ISBN: 1-889743-72-0

      Also available in Spanish, Brazilian, Turkish, Dutch, German, Polish, Japanese and many other languages. See" target="_blank">" target="_blank">

      • Hello Mayra Abarca,

        The Satanic Bloodlines: The Illuminati concept (1990's)

        There are secret societies. There are really evil, extremely wealthy people. There are people close to it all who think it's a joke, a semi-joke, sort of serious in the minds of others, and/or extremely serious. It's the same range of emotions concerning Christianity — the whole spectrum that can vary in intensity from one time and place to another.

        One of the places where it becomes a problem is when it's a mask for ethnic bigotry and racism in either direction — those who stand against the secret societies and evil wealthy, etc. and those who side with them.

        The idea that all bloodline Jews are inherently wicked in some way that so-called Gentiles are not is false. The idea the Jews are superior or the chosen ones (in some Old Testament caste sense) in some way that the Gentiles are not is also false. We are all, regardless of ethnic background to rise above all of that as the whole of humanity. The Holy Spirit reveals these things.

        Jesus did not show that he held with castes. The Old Testament though contains competing prophecies (philosophical psychologies). Only one is right.

        "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22 KJVR)

        Well, at least Jesus showed many what Jesus worships. Also, by the Jews in this context, he means the real Jews who all believed in him and still do believe in him.

        He wasn't being artificial when he washed their feet. He was showing the side in this debate/prophesying that is the correct view.

        And she arose, and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord. (1 Samuel 25:41 KJVR)

        You see, that's Abigail speaking to David. Abigail was the wife of the churl (greedy capitalist by today's standards) whom Jesus was stating is higher in Heaven than the "upper" class snobs and stingy, etc. She was very well-off financially, but her level of comprehension about righteousness was notably higher, which means softer hearted than that of the churls'.

        Of course, what Jesus says and shows transcends Abigail. He continued unfolding the truth.

        And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. (Luke 7:38 KJVR)

        This was a woman of Nain who was a known sinner. Jesus raised her up higher than the rich Pharisee, Simon.

        And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped" them "with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven," the same "loveth little." (Luke 7:44-47 KJVR)

        After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, "What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter." Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, "He that is washed needeth not save to wash" his "feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, "Ye are not all clean. " So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, "Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for" so "I am. If I then, " your "Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am" he. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (John 13:5-20 KJVR)

        This whole thing is a linguistic construct, which is everything.

        It (the illuminati) is all fraudulent no matter who believes in it — meaning including the ultra-rich and other depraved ones — or what they do.

        There are those who say that I have not been called or chosen or sent by Jesus. However, I come in the name of the LORD and Lord, not in my own name alone.

        God bless,

        Tom Usher

    • Dear tom,

      I agree with you. So does the book. It is really an unique book about the antichrist. You will not find a book like this one. I advise you to read it. See Preview:

      The author agrees with you on the real Jews, that we are not facing a Jewish conspiracy, et cetera.

      If you give me an address, than I will take care that you receive e free copy of the book.

      Sincerely in Christ.

      • Hi Again, Mayra,

        This will be in a bit of shorthand. Not everyone will follow. I suspect you will.

        If you want to do that, if you feel it is that important, that beneficial (not hardhearted), then see just above the Copyright section at the bottom of this page.

        A quick look at it and it all seems old to me. I suppose there may be some nuggets in it though and some things to take with grains and perhaps blocks of salt. We shall see. Of course, most of it is still brand new to the vast majority of people.

        I already notice an error concerning John Kennedy (jumping to conclusions). His "secret societies" speech must be read in toto to understand it even slightly. Then the whole speech must be put into other contexts. The speech does not say that he was about to blow the lid off the top antichrists. For sure, he was doing things that the power elite didn't want him to do. The magic bullet theory screams that and whether or not he was going to expose all the 33rd degree people at their most depraved.

        You do know that John Kennedy was no saint, right?

        He did though print up the non-Federal Reserve notes in the billions. The plutocrats do have their hired killers of course. The whole Pentagon belongs to them after all. They aren't going to let good government just move on in to clean up all the corruption. They aren't just going to let some President stop the usury. They think they'd fight an all out civil war to prevent it. You know that Barack Obama has their blessing for awhile too, right? You know that while all Jews aren't evil, the Zionist Project is deeply enmeshed with the global plutocracy, right? Some of the false-Zionist bankers are Likudniks and would sell their mothers.

        The plutocracy is gangsterism worse than the Mafia. The Mafia knows this. They won't want to say it out loud too much though because they fear the plutocrats and do as they too are told in the end. The plutocrats own the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the "freelancers," etc.

        Blessings to you,

        Tom Usher