Look, I don't wish anyone ill. I want God to bless Rush Limbaugh. Of course, if God does bless Rush Limbaugh, Rush will not be fractured up in his mind, body, and soul. Then, he won't be saying things that are plainly asinine on their face, such as von Brunn was a leftist. Brunn was a so-called rightwing (capitalist) libertarian but also a racist and decidedly anti-Jew (hence his Nazis sympathies). Not all rightwing libertarians are racists, per se. It is unfair and dishonest and/or ignorant (at best) to lump all rightwing libertarians together as being racists.

Now, in sound bite mentality, unfortunately, some rightwing libertarians are saying that because Keith Olbermann pointed out that Brunn showed some interest in Ron Paul that Olbermann is necessarily equating Ron Paul supporters as a whole as being as Brunn. To be fair, that was not Olbermann's contention as best I can tell. Olbermann may have been simply pointing out that Limbaugh is wrong that Brunn is/was a "leftist." Leftists don't support Ron Paul, but that is far from the evidence Olbermann pointed to, to show that Brunn was interested in rightwing ideology.

Libertarianism is not leftist. Leftist is sharing. Unlike Libertarianism, leftism is not looking out for self first and foremost. The self is taken care of as one helps the whole body. Libertarianism is looking out for self first and foremost. There is libertarian socialism. One needs the qualifier to move it to the left.

Libertarians have some things in common with the right and left, but then so too does neoconservatism. That's why the libertarians can lump the neocons in with the socialists.

It's muddled in the public eye — intentionally so.

Let me be clear here. I am not a Keith Olbermann fan. I disagree with much of what he says and his choices of words. He is wrong to have no understanding of the concerns people have on the other side.

There are manipulators on both sides, but there are people who genuinely care on both sides. They are confused and don't have the answers, but they are not out for bad. They want to do the right thing. Olbermann and Limbaugh are not being helpful.

The Libertarians do themselves no favor when they delay denouncing acts such as Brunn's.

If their forces split over the issue of racism and ethnic bigotry, good. Those who are Libertarians who are decidedly not racists or ethnic bigots clearly should distance themselves from racism and ethnic bigotry. That way, the other issues concerning false-flag operations, such as 9/11, and the privatization of the currency, as with the Federal Reserve Notes {where the Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor has any reserves but is a privately held, secretive, un-audited bank that charges all the tax payers interest on what should be the peoples money interest free (no National Debt; no Income Tax to pay back the bankers for what they don't deserve and didn't earn but rather concluded in a secret, criminal enterprise)}. The bailout of Wall Street was orchestrated by them while all the money should have gone to Main Street and the real economy.

Let me say that while there are Nazis who overlap some of their personal ideology with Libertarianism, it is stupid and vastly overly simplistic to say that Libertarians are Nazi-oriented. Most of them believe themselves to be the exact opposite of Nazis. Brunn was a Nazis-sympathizer at the very least. That does not mean that understanding Nazis is to sympathize with them in the sense where sympathize means to condone. Parse the language correctly or hold your tongue is a good rule.


See also: "New US commander in Afghanistan assembles team of assassins," by Bill Van Auken. World Socialist Web Site. June 12 2009.

That's a socialist article even the Libertarian capitalists can endorse. It doesn't mean buying into Marx and his coercive system. Even the socialists of the World Socialist Web Site denounce Stalin though. Think about it. It matters.


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.