Why do people who don't know God and Jesus attempt to speak authoritatively about them and have millions and millions of people agreeing and giving money?

Pat Robertson on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News (News?) said the Jesus was (is) not a fan of big government, per se. Wrong! Of course, Robertson is only speaking about the "Big Government" that promotes the welfare of the poorest of the poor. He isn't talking about the huge government that wages war around the globe. He's all for that war-waging big government. More to the point though is that Jesus is with God who is the leader of the government of everything, only with delusional rebel such as Robertson standing against them (God and Jesus). Anyway, it doesn't get any bigger than God's government.

Robertson is against the government that taxes him of a portion of the tithes and other taxes (offerings) Robertson puts on the hearts and souls of his deluded minions. He's all for the government that taxes the poor to go to war to protect Robertson's personal estate/empire.

Would Jesus be for bailing out General Motors to save union jobs? He'd ask you who put him in charge. If you put him in charge, where he ought to be, he'd put it on you to decide whether gas powered cars are the way to go (consistent with the Golden Rule or bad for people in general)? He also have in mind a whole world that works without them. Therefore, the so-called liberals who are for bailing out GM to bailout unions are actually being shortsighted and aiming way too low.

Robertson said, "I do believe that Jesus said, 'You don't prefer a poor person over a rich person, at all.'" Well, please, that's so contextual. There is a place where it's true, but there is also a place (higher priority place) where it isn't, far from it. The place where it is true is where the poor is a slave to evil just as much as is the rich one. The poor one wants to be rich, and will work evil to get his or hers. He or she is no better than the rich one who hoards in the face of want even on the part of the wholly innocent and pure.

Now look people. Pat Robertson has read the following: But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24 KJVR) He's ignoring it. He's cherry picking so that he can keep minions in the context he wants them to be stuck in for Pat's sake and the sake of Pat's family/empire he's built off those dupes and suckers, as P. T. Barnum called them.

Jesus said give it all for the sake of the poor. The rich one walked away headed for damnation because he couldn't bring himself to do it. Is Pat Robertson telling his FOX audience that? No, he's not telling them that because they'd start thinking, and Pat doesn't want them to think.

Tell Pat that he isn't fooling you anymore. Jesus is not, and never has been, a capitalist. He doesn't like money. He actually hates it and wants us to evolve beyond it. He called money deceitful and unrighteous and said we don't need taxes and shouldn't be taxed: no banks or bankers; no moneychangers anywhere; free of the greedy! Who are the greedy but those who accumulate and hoard for self apart from God's fold? How many Christians are denied by Pat's tens even hundreds of millions of dollars and huge mansion and fancy cars with drivers, etc.? Did Jesus have anything even remotely like Pat's setup?

Jesus is highest in Heaven because he is the lowest servant of the fold. Jesus is an all-ships-rise-with-the-tide person, not a trickledown liar.

Pat Robertson and Neil Cavuto are raging, crony capitalists. They are totally antichrist. Fox News is totally antichrist, not that any of the networks are Christian. They aren't, and that includes TBN and the other so-called Christian networks.

Wake up. Tell the liars you aren't going to follow them anymore.



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.
    • Thomas James

      I find it interesting that Pat Robertson always says that we should get the government off of our backs and that the government is the problem because it produces burdensome regulations. The fact of the matter is that under any advanced capitalist society where the motive is to extract the greatest profit regardless of the human cost massive regulations are required in order to prevent the system from collapsing. For example in the Old Testament I would believe that it would be fair to say that a limited capitalism was allowed with an opportunity for substantial individual wealth to be created however it was heavily regulated by Torah law. If these burdensome regulations were to be lifted the rich would take advantage of the poor. Slaves would have to serve apprenticeships of 99 years, Interest rates of 100 percent would be charged and payments on debt would continue forever, land would never be returned to the poor until the richest 1 percent owned 99 percent of the land, the poor would starve, a capitalist could starve and beat his slave to death with impunity simply by exercising his property rights, slaves would have to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week.

      However I agree with Pat Robertson that over regulation as well as Torah law is too burdensome. However I think the only ethical way to eliminate this type of burden is to go with the Christian Commons. You see if you eliminate the money and the profit motive you will find that most of the regulations that you find in an advanced capitalist society would be obsolete. Why would a boss try to work a man 24 hours a day 7 days a week until he drops if all of the profits are shared equally? The only laws if any that are required would be to insure that everyone has their basic needs met.

      I think people like Pat Robertson who insist that capitalism is God's ultimate system should stop calling themselves Christians and rather be honest and practice Torah Judaism instead. And Pat should never complain about the burdensome regulations because after all these are God's regulations found in the Old Testament.

      • Hello Thomas,

        It took me a while to get to your comment. As you may see, I posted a number of articles the same day.

        I believe you are constantly waging a spiritual war with your mundane family members who are so Old Testament oriented as to be very nearly oblivious to the New Testament. The way I'm reading you, it appears that you are being highly practical or pragmatic, even though I know deep in your heart you are really wanting to do what's right regardless of the "practical" arguments you're putting forth against Pat Robertson.

        The truth is though that righteousness is the most practical or pragmatic thing there is because doing what is right always ends up best — best and right being synonymous, even identical in the end.

        Pat Robertson isn't thinking on the practical level or the Christian level. He's working the evil spirit for selfish gain. He's a liar from the beginning. There isn't a Christian bone in his body, not that bones are clean anyway. I use the expression only in the colloquial sense.

        I do see that you realize this though when you call for him to be honest that he's much closer to a Torah Jew then a Christian. In fact, he's very much like the Talmudic Pharisee. Nearly all the televangelists are.

        You are absolutely right that capitalism was allowed in the Old Testament. That's what was wrong with it. Jesus came and completely exposed the utter hypocrisy in the whole religious system. That's what he was sent to do. You are also on the right track in suggesting that parts of the Old Testament were pragmatic to the point they could grasp the logic and make the mundane connections. Many non-spiritual people were in the business of religion in the Old Testament. They were lawyers. The scripture was law. They looked at it very much the way today's lawyers look at things: mundanely legal.

        Then there is the other Old Testament that called and still does for sharing all. Those prophets were allowed but not followed until Jesus and now with the Commons. Pat and his ilk don't want to deal with that theology that says that the Old Testament is the story of argument and debate. How can it be if it was all handwritten by God? Well, expand your mind! That's exactly what Pat doesn't want — expanded minds. Expanded spiritual understanding stops giving him money and starts translating it into the mammonless Commons. There goes Pat's mansion and cook and driver and race horses and exotic cars and five-star hotels and private jets and on and on and on, me, mine, more, greedy, selfish, pigs, as our great brother Jesus called them.

        The thing is that government and the message of Jesus are rightly identical. Jesus's message is the one and only right way of being organized and ruled. It comes out from the convicted heart. Pat Robertson hasn't the faintest idea about that and neither do his followers, although some do begin to make the connections when exposed to them but unfortunately, so far, they slip back every time to my knowledge.

        You wrote that, "The only laws if any that are required would be to insure that everyone has their basic needs met." Well, Thomas, no, not in the sense-meaning of the term "basic" as you've intended. It's much deeper than that. The laws that are required are the whole Gospel message — lacking not one jot or tittle. The law is the highest standard because it is consensus driven; and when discussion is not censored and everyone is to go with the best or leave, those who remain are left with the best, which is the heart and mind of Christ in all.

        Thomas, in the Christian Commons, each is ready to go to the cross for the sake of any other of the fold or lost but still of the fold. That's way beyond just meeting basic fleshly needs, although meeting basic fleshly needs is required by it. Christianity is an all or nothing concept.

        One is given to go in all the way or hold out, in which case, he or she is still of this worldly world and not fit for the Commons on Earth.

        It's faith, Thomas. It's faith without fear. If you go for it, you know that nothing behind you is damaged by your decision. If you are given to know it, then you do it without fear. If not, you'll remain back in the world and go the way of it. You may have life but not in the highest, at least according to Jesus. I believe him. He hasn't given me a bum steer yet and never will. That's the most important thing I've ever written to you, and it's right out here in the open for all to see. How many will grasp it?


    • Jodi Sokso

      what bible are you reading?

      Did you write it yourself?

      Wow, you do know that

      the unsaved will have

      difficulty understanding

      the bible. I guess this

      is a very good example.

      I will be praying for you

      and your loyal.

      • Jodi Sokso,

        You're a Pat Robertson and/or Neil Cavuto/Fox News follower? You asked what Bible I'm quoting. Open your eyes. It's right there with the quote: "KJVR." KJV means King James Version. Did I write the Bible? "Thou sayest". Be careful!

        Now look, you've come here and taken the time to write against me and those who agree with me about the verse above. You've supplied nothing to backup your two sarcastic questions or the rest of your sarcastic comment. Why are you embarrassing yourself this way? What does, "But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation" mean to you if it doesn't mean what it says? Why is your mind closed? Why are you more than insinuating that I don't understand what it says when you are completely ignoring it? Why are you under the spell of Pat Robertson? What are you gaining that is wholly selfish and apart from God and Jesus?

        You don't have the truth. That's plain and clear for all to see. You've done a bad thing commenting this way. You've added to being the problem rather than the solution.

        You're way out of your depth here. You better ask God before you do this sort of thing again. If you're listening to God rather than Pat Robertson, you'll hear, "Don't do it."

        Nevertheless, bless you,

        Tom Usher

    • Alan Hamer

      Hi Tom

      It is my view the rishes
      and moeny does not corupt a man soul only the love of moeny

      If we had more Godly men with finances to help the world could be a better place.

      I have met some people
      that are very covertness
      about the little they have and I have met some that have a lot and are always giving

      Yes I know it is difficult for a rich man to pass throw the eye of a needle but not impossible.

      Just a thought

      Alan H

      • Alan, we totally part company here.

        Money is inherently evil. It is inherently deceitful. It is unrighteous. It was the invention of wicked minds. You are reading from Paul and not Jesus. Paul and Jesus are not the same spirit in all things. It's clear and plain to see.

        We don't need a medium of exchange (money or anything like it). We don't need to charge or be charged for anything. It's a huge scam by the rich (greedy ones; antichrists)! Have you read the Christian Commons Project?

        We don't need banks or bankers or interest or national debts. It's all a lie. Jesus said that the children of God are to be free of taxes. Think about it, Alan.

        Alan, if you study every place where Jesus talked about mammon (I have), you will see that what I say here is 100% consistent with Jesus's teaching.

        No, those who have been told to part with their money for the sakes of the poor and refuse will not be in Jesus's Heaven. That's the way it is, and I'm glad for those in Heaven who are not and will not be subjected any further to the evil spirit of greed, and personal accumulation and hoarding in the face of want. If others hate me for it, it's a badge of honor.