The self-styled libertarians are concerned about a number of things:
The Real Liberal Christian Church (RLCC) agrees with this movement in that there has been an official cover-up to protect those who do not have the best interest of the people at heart but rather are parts of an imperial and monarchical conspiracy of elitists.
They believe that the federal government is being guided to make obtaining the materials for making ammunition more difficult so that the people will be effectively disarmed and therefore controllable as a herd of cattle or sheep to be done with as the powers that be decide.
Their problem is with coercive government that they define as whatever results from, among other things, public-democratic decisions. To the libertarians, others don't have the natural right to vote away whatever it is that the libertarians want to do. The RLCC position is Jesus's position, which is tell the truth about cause and effect and then let it be. Just make sure everyone hears it even if he or she doesn't absorb it.
Bloodlines (not always)
The libertarians have been very DNA oriented. Although, this is changing out of necessity, since racism and ethnic bigotry is proving unjustified. The exposure of Nazis pseudo-science bears this out.
The RLCC puts stock in the spirit of people as individuals and as groups. Being of a particular bloodline is not the final word. The spirit can transform matter.
This is, as with the rest of these points and the whole of language and even being, a matter of definition or concept. Freedom is addressed below.
The libertarians like to rail against socialism, whether social democracy or Bolshevism, because those forms are coercive. What they don't want to address is Jesus's non-coercive appeal to socialism. The libertarians, at least the most cerebral of them, admit that the giving-and-sharing-all political economy advocated and practiced by Christ is the ideal; however, they refuse to practice it in their own lives even when they profess Christianity. It's a fatal flaw. Jesus cut ignorant people slack but made clear that those who understand are obligated.
The libertarians want people to be sure not to confuse capitalism with corporatism. Banking and industry are organized as corporations with so much power that they control public government.
This goes hand-in-hand with corporatism. The superrich install their friends and minions in public government to complete the circle of control.
The libertarians falsely believe that decentralized government alone is the key. They equate this with small government. The problem here is that it does not address the spirit necessary to bring real peace and real (sustainable) bounty. Tyrannies can and do exist on the one-on-one level.
The RLCC position is that bottom-up/top-down is ultimately a misconception. Jesus teaches us to turn the pyramid over so that the leaders are on the bottom serving as such. In that way, ultimately there will be a leveling while all rise. It is all ships rising with an always-rising tide.
Consensus is right rather than majority rule. Everyone having a voice in unity is the right gate and way.
This is a huge area of error for the libertarians. However, many libertarians appear to be grasping that their own personal health and wellbeing and that of their kith and kin is directly impacted by environmental pollution. Many libertarians have turned and are turning to all natural and organic foods for instance. This movement is opening eyes concerning toxic chemicals and other monstrosities produced and disseminated by capitalist entities.
The biggest problem in this area concerns coercion and conflating conspiracies. I addressed coercion further on as a source of concern for the libertarians.
As for conflating conspiracies, there is no doubt that there are selfish, greedy people who seek to twist the movement to environmental awareness and protection (Creation Care) to evil ends (personal, temporal gain in the unrighteous mammon at the negative expense of all others). However, that definitely is not sufficient reason then to stand against Creation Care. Tell the truth about those who seek to twist the movement and about coercive forces, but do not undercut the conscience or consciousness of people concerning caring for the house that is the planet Earth and even the whole of existence when carried to its logical conclusion.
Pay attention to the fact that Exxon is a huge, huge corporation with the funds to spend on think tanks to come up with propaganda to dupe small fry into denying human contributions to dramatic climate change. That's what they've done. Are you one of the ones who've fallen for it?
The U.S. government has built numerous camps on military bases around the nation. The government could use those for all manner of purposes. If there is a natural disaster for instance, such camps could be used in only the most humanitarian of ways. The problem is that the libertarians do read history. Those camps could be used as Indian reservations were used and as the Japanese internment camps were used. They could be used to hold people who cross the national border against mundane laws. They could also be used to imprison anyone who disagrees with the ruling elite regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says. In other words, they could be used to hold political prisoners who are even full, natural-born, U.S. citizens who have done nothing but exercise their Constitutional rights.
The libertarians are concerned (and/or are drumming up a fear for profits from the stuff they sell for preparedness) that just being associated with Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty Party, or Libertarian Party is going to be enough for the elites to throw the libertarians and others into camps and then throw away the key, as George W. Bush did to a degree with the "unlawful combatants," many of whom were never charged or tried or convicted of anything.
The libertarians fear that martial law will be inappropriately declared and egregiously abused. They believe that the elite always have ulterior motives that are as evil as evil can get. There are such currents running in the elite. There's no doubt about it. They cannot though sustain it, try as they might. The libertarians fear Nazism and fascism and Communism (Marxist Bolshevism) in America.
The government is corporatist and crony based. The political offices and regulatory agencies have revolving doors from the largest corporations that pay so well in the unrighteous mammon. Monsanto Corporation (a chemical and bioengineering) company has managed to get public government to do its bidding in many areas. Its lobbying efforts are huge.
Libertarian farmers and co-op owners and operators are rightly concerned that such corporations seek a monopoly on food production and distribution. The government has been subverted to mask this behind national security and anti-terrorism. In the process, the government has become terroristic towards many citizens who are doing nothing wrong and who are in fact doing more right than are those corporations and the public government those capitalist corporations dominate.
I've referred to Monsanto 117 times in various posts before this one.
Linn Cohen-Cole over on OpEdNews does a yeowoman's job in tracking and exposing Monsanto abuses of libertarians and others (including Christians) just trying to mind their own business and not hurt, threaten, or undermine anything legitimate under the U.S. Constitution.
This has been a longstanding area of concern for the gun advocates. They don't trust the government not to act as the Gestapo where the people are totally disarmed. They believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees their right to bear arms. That is debatable at best, since the clause is to be read in its full context. The well-regulated militias (government controlled) don't bring their own choice of personally owned weapons from their homes anymore. They use the weapons supplied by the state.
Regardless, this is a non-Christian area. Jesus didn't bear arms of that type. His sword was the word: Truth. It was not a sword made of metal used to take men's lives. He didn't come to do that. He came to save souls. It is deliberately cryptic to sort the lambs and sheep (softhearted) from goats (hardhearted).
Let me add here that real communism is not Marxism. Real communism will never result from violence. It can't. Real communism is perfect peace. It is perfect, harmonious living as one loving family that is the ideal humanity. To get there requires all to be of the right spirit that is the spirit exemplified by Jesus. Nothing short of that will work.
The militia movement is often conflated by coercive socialist so that the whole movement and everyone in it may be discriminated against. The militia movement is not homogeneous. It runs a long spectrum (all of it false-hearted but nevertheless long). There are dangerous White supremacists who form some "militias." On the other end, there are citizens who are not racist or bigoted who consider themselves patriots in the mold of Thomas Jefferson and the others held out as the best of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.
Well, the RLCC certainly doesn't hold with all things Jeffersonian, far from it. The libertarians though do have their point that it is hypocritical of the national leaders to uphold the U.S. Constitution only when it serves those leaders and to ignore it when it doesn't.
Frankly, as I've written numerous times on this website, the U.S. Constitution is fatally flawed. It was drafted by people who were not looking out for the little people but rather eyeing building up their often relatively huge personal estates that were threatened by the British monarch.
Here, the libertarians want their homes to be their castles with them as kings within. They allude to some vaguely discussed appeal to respecting others and to forming private clubs for mutual protection, but this is not well thought out. It raises the issue of where to draw the line for violence that Jesus never draws. Such lines are not righteous in the end.
The libertarians for the most part, rail against the Federal Reserve Notes that are privatized, so-called legal tender. This doesn't mean that libertarianism is against private currency. They are for bartering and mediums of exchange. They just mostly point to the Constitution as requiring the Congress and only the Congress to coin the money and set its value. It would be preferable so long as the members of Congress would be more sensible. Removing the power of the private big-bankers to have a monopoly over both the volume of money and velocity of the circulation of that money is a step in the righteous direction but far from enough.
The libertarians use the humanist, so-called Enlightenment period, definition of the term liberal. The RLCC uses the Isaiah/Jesus sense of the term instead, hence our name Real Liberal.
That Enlightenment era was anything but enlightening. It only served to knock down the straw man that was the evil history of the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant churches and others of the time. It opened the door to just a different direction on the broad way to Hell. It avoided the real message of Jesus because it couldn't stand giving up iniquity, which giving up is the inevitable call of logic and reason — the full implication of Jesus's words and deeds.
This usually refers to gold and other metals. It's a distraction. It's a way for those who have the largest warehouses of gold to get to the top.
The U.S. scrip before the European bankers took over the U.S. was not based upon anything but the agreement of the people to honor the scrip as the medium of exchange.
Ultimately, no such medium is needed where the people just agree to create whatever they need as individuals and as one family.
The Bill of Rights
This is the battleground for the libertarians. The Bill of Rights was inserted into the U.S. Constitution over the objections of elitists. The present-day elitists simply act as if the Bill of Rights doesn't exist. They claim that the President and others have the constant legal authority under that same Constitution to nullify the Bill of Rights.
The truth is that the Bill of Rights consists of operative clauses — meaning that had they not been included or had it been anticipated that they would be treated as they now are by those who have fabricated the constant state-of-war (never mundanely legally declared), the Constitution never would have been ratified in the first place. In other words, breach of the operative conditions cancels the contract. In that case, there is no President because there is no Constitution. It's everyone for him or herself again.
We are headed for forms of tyranny and anarchy of the most negative variety on account of people's rejection of the New Commandment.
Subversion of Religion
The libertarians point out that the government through the FBI and others under Homeland Security (a Nazi label) along with the CIA and DIA all under the President or executive branch have approached so-called religious leaders and enlisted them to council congregations to obey the public government.
The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared. (Source: "Police Trained Nationwide That Informed Americans Are Domestic Terrorists," by Paul Joseph Watson, Kurt Nimmo, and Alex Jones. Prison Planet.com. Friday, March 13, 2009)
To be fair, it is absolutely true that Romans 13 is cited as requiring the common people to submit to the powers that be. What is not correct is that in so doing, the verses are being taken out of context. The fact of the matter is that Paul made a huge mistake that Jesus never made. Paul characterized in ways completely contrary to the whole meaning of Jesus's movement.
I've written on this extensively in posts and comments.
Don't be duped here. Paul stated error, whether intentionally or not, and history reflects the terrible effects. We are now charged with setting things right that is back to what Jesus still means, which is not following evil orders such as to go make war!
The libertarians see all of their concerns as being wholly consistent — to the extent they've bothered with looking for inconsistencies.
They usually communicate in terms that project their often unspoken view that anything that is against any aspect of their worldview as indicative of a coordinated effort against them. In the sense that coercion is a concept, they are correct except that the level of coordination is extremely amorphous. "You are either with us or against us" is a Christian tenet. It does not mean, however, that those who are against Jesus agree with each other on much else or even as to what aspects of Christ they hate or even how to define those aspects where they share their contempt.
It all really comes down to who governs. Jesus was a libertarian in the sense that he quite obviously asked people to be self-governing individuals for the sake of the whole, regardless of how extensive one is given to comprehend, and for the sake of that individual. Jesus was the consummate teacher of the perfectly working moral conscience.
Where the small fry libertarians part company with Jesus is, among infinite other places all boiling down to the same deficiency, where they cannot bring themselves to turn the other cheek and not punish others. They put their flesh and blood and bone before the spirit. They lack the faith. They are never true believers because of it. They don't exemplify Christ.
Now, I agree with their desire to be free; but I define freedom as freedom from evil. I define evil as Jesus defines evil. I follow Jesus. Jesus is logical to me. His reasoning is logical to the nth degree. What the libertarians are promoting without saying it very often, but they are surely alluding to it more and more and more openly every day (understandable on a certain level but I completely disagree with them) is that the people should fight and kill and die rather than submit to what those libertarians define as tyranny, which it is but is not the only form tyranny takes.
Tyranny takes the form of being tempted to violence. The libertarians are falling to that temptation in reaction to others who use violence and the threat of violence to control others. Neither side is right in this. That's Jesus's point.
In real Christianity, knowing that peace is right, turning the other cheek, setting the peaceful example, being persecuted for it, even being murdered for it, is the right thing because the soul goes on and the impact is all for the better leading to the best or perfection that is God by definition.
Are there wicked people out to gain the world? Yes. The way to beat them is not by shooting them dead. Shooting them suggests that violence is the right reaction to whatever offends. If no one drew that line anywhere, we would have total peace. The reason for that is because in order to fully comprehend it, one must have the consistency of mind properly to prioritize all actions/reactions. Thoughtfulness and considerateness are fitted into the vast configuration of things with outcomes out into infinite time taken as the aim. That's what Jesus showed and is still about doing on his level wherever he is that is the New Heaven unfolding. This is revealed truth. It is not subjective only. It is not vague.
Now, there are plenty of people who hate Christ who do their utmost to co-opt as much of Jesus's teachings as possible while retaining iniquity. They secretly, and sometimes openly on account of their lack of shame at their own confusion and ignorance, reserve the false right to run counter to consistency. This is what Marx did. He pointed to nirvana, heaven, utopia, or whatever term you wish to apply, that is the communist state, but he taught that the way to it is violence and coercion and tyranny. In order to excuse himself and to confuse others as he was confused, he denied the immaterial (non-matter in the physics sense; vague).
Now we have people who seek to refine Marx by removing the authorization to violence while still remaining materialists (matterists, not necessarily personally so much materially stingy or hoarding). Others will take the next step and introduce the spiritual but still deny Jesus and Jesus's God. Most of their arguments center on being anti-Christian where they define Christian as what has been done in its name or in Jesus's name. What those people don't do that is wholly unacceptable of them is sort out the evil in that, which are those things done in the name of Christianity and/or Jesus that are not consistent with Jesus's words or deeds. In other words, they knock down a straw man.
They hold out what is not Christian as Christian and then point out why the non-Christian things are bad and want others to conclude that therefore Jesus ought not to be followed. It's a dishonest approach and indicates why people who take that approach ought not themselves to be followed.
Christianity is what Jesus said and did. That's its foundation. Anything not built, or building, upon that is not and never will be Christian.
This is why I devised the Christian Commons that needs your support. We are to bring forth, and I have seen no better plan. I see nothing in the Christian Commons Project that is not on the path laid down by Jesus. It is a steppingstone on the path.
Now, if the people refuse to bring forth, it will not preclude souls from reaching God.
All the people have not done Jesus's bidding, but Jesus is next to God.
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)