Continued from a previous post and based upon a comment reply of mine over on Facebook

Alex does have guests who say some ridiculous things that are often designed to leave the speaker weasel room. The shape-shifters of David Icke are the stuff of imagination (he is not channeling minds from the Alpha Draconis star system); but figuratively speaking, he does describe the evil spirit. Does he ever come right out and say whether he means what he's saying as literally as the most ardent literalists take the Bible?

As for Alex's emotionalism, I think it has much to do with the supplements he may be taking. He has money and there are "mind-enhancing" supplements available from outside the U.S. that if one isn't careful can over stimulate the brain. The Libertarians (the better off ones) are often into such drugs. I'm not opposed to a little bit of such drugs. There just isn't enough care taken to keep people from overdosing. That's not because the drugs are more dangerous than those in the U.S. but because the U.S. bans them since U.S. Big Pharma doesn't stand to profit from them being available to Americans via regular channels.

I see Alex maturing, learning, and growing provided the powers that be don't deliberately drive him completely insane. When discussing things with people who are highly informed, he does tend to qualify his statements more, which is good. He should do it more with the rank and file. He's going to have to bring them along though.

As for Webster Tarpley (someone Alex Jones has on his show often and whom Alex appears to admire and to whom Alex also often defers), I've read Webster Tarpley (George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography) and seen him in various videos. Much of what he says is right. He seems to be under the spell of Big Oil though, as does Alex Jones.

Little fry Libertarians are strange on environmentalism. They just don't get it that the richest anti-environmentalist don't give a damn about those little fry. The Koch brothers fund the Cato Institute to dupe the little people into accepting Koch's oil, gas, coal, chemicals, etc., for instance.

Alex cozying up to Charlie Sheen isn't going to hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement either. It doesn't belong to Libertarians, as Tarpley also shows.

You might be interested in this link too.

Big Tobacco isn't what it was once in the U.S., but it's still evil, huge, and growing in the world in general. Big Tobacco and Bid Oil come out from the same dark spirit.


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

      Concerning the claim of a Global Warming Doomsday with Bible verses in revelation and the Old Testament that back up the claim that the Sun will shine 7 times as bright and men who are scorched will not repent and curse God it is no wonder that the founder of Greenpeace is now so desperate as to search for any technological solution to this problem of Doomsday even willing to become a traitor.

      Unfortunately ever since man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil the same technology that promises us infinite energy also promises us infinite death and destruction.

      However the cat is already out of the bag and even if the world reduces or eliminates its nuclear arsenals the knowledge will still remain on how to build an atomic bomb.

      As daunting as the technological challenges of producing relatively safe or unsafe nuclear power are, these challenges are not impossible but may be infinitely difficult and complex. However nuclear power itself poses no imminent threat of Doomsday although it does create significant unacceptable environmental problems. Nuclear war on the otherhand does allow Doomsday.

      Solar energy promises to be a solution to the problem of Global Warming however in order for solar power to work most effectively we need to get the panels as close to the Sun as possible in order to produce the massive amounts of energy required for our consumer lifestyle. However this requires massive payloads of millions of tons to be put in orbit around the Sun. Again chemical rockets are too feeble for the task.

      Carl Sagan who by the way was an arrested anti-nuclear war protester has suggested that the best way to reduce our nuclear arsenal would be to use these bombs to propel rockets either by underground explosions or detonating them is space. This way treaties that forbid the atmospheric explosions of atomic bombs would be honored.

      Of course the creation of a 8 million ton star ship with a thousand round atomic bomb machine gun which is called the "Orion Project" (google that) may seem to be the creation of a Death Star but if this device is loaded with solar panels would it not be more like a Noah's Ark which can save the planet?

      Conservation may seem to be an alternative however when nations like China desire our consumer lifestyle no doubt they will not hesitate to build massive amounts of coal fired plants for short term economic gain.

      Conventional solar technology is still not out of the question however it will have to compete nuclear power. However in order for solar to be competitive the real costs of nuclear power will have to be considered and not just the startup costs. For example nuclear power is claimed to cost only 6 cents a kilowatt hour but its real cost may be closer to 12 cents because of environmental problems. Solar costs 24 cents a kilowatt hour but its real cost may be only 12 cents. When real costs are factored in there is now an incentive to produce green energy and even an opportunity to chisel down the price of solar energy so that it is even cheaper than nuclear energy.

      And also we need to get rid of these banks that charge us 30 percent interest which means that solar power ends up costing us 240 cents a kilowatt hour by the time we pay the interest.

      • Wow Thomas, you put a great deal of work into that comment. You could have made it a post. You still have your log in don't you? Do you want to convert it to a post? Thank you regardless. You have raised many very important ideas and things to think about.

        Anyway, geothermal could handle it all. It's my understanding that photovoltaics on the ground here could handle it all right now too. Solar cooking is extremely under used. Solar clothes driers are available. The biggest drain is commercial refrigeration, but cool deck technology has been around for decades. They just haven't used it to keep the buildings cooler. There are many techniques that could be used to shade exteriors. There are other new materials coming on line now too.

        As for the money, money is nothing. Money is a farce. Money is a lie. It was never needed. Think about it. Before there was money there was everything. Money is only for selfishness. It's only for those who won't give without getting. Society before money was largely extended families. All we need to do is treat everyone that way again. The family heads saw to it that everyone was provisioned. That's all. Money imposes unnecessary limits. Who cares about how much money some project will cost when there is no money?

        We need food. Grow it. We need houses. Build them. We need clothes. Make them. Whatever we need, do it. When Pharaoh built the greatest pyramid, he did not borrow any money. He said, "Build it." Now, that was a decision of one man. The same project could have been the choice of the whole nation. More to the point, the whole nation could have chosen to do any project of any size or scope it wanted. All that would have been necessary is cooperation.

        So, if the American people, for instance, want all the free energy they can use, all they need to do is say, "Build it," and then do it as if ordered from on high. When it comes time to paying workers (themselves), they just cooperate and coordinate the work to supply everything everyone needs to live very, very well. They do it by their own councils where everyone knows that the focus is everyone getting what everyone needs. It's in the New Testament. It's what I call the Christian Commons.

        Just think about how liberating it would be to be working for one and all without any dictators. Just think about how it would feel not to be thinking about self all the damn time but be thinking about all of us all the time.

        No one has a better idea.

        That's just the mundane side of it too. More change would come via spiritual changes. I am saying miracles here if we could get the people in sync enough.

        Okay, so there are many people most imagine won't be able to bring themselves to doing what's best because they are frightened and brainwashed, etc. They won't or can't hear or see the clear and plain truth right now enough to move to this straight away. What about them?

        Well, you alluded to it. Ban the Federal Reserve. Go to United States Notes (interest free). Peg the value exactly to real productivity. Use those notes to pay off the national debt or declare bankruptcy. I would pay off those who invested in the bonds legitimately. I would not reward the banksters who set up the fraud.

        All money needed would be put into the Works Projects decided by the people who would unfortunately still be entrepreneurs in today's meaning (competitive). Much less progress would result, but at least the National Debt and all taxes would be gone forever. All loans would be gone. All debts would be gone. All interest would be gone. The people would no longer be debt slaves to the lying, thieving bankers.

        We would have full employment immediately. We'd have a booming economy with no artificial busts in site, ever.



    • Thomas James

      What I am thinking is the problem of global warming is infinitely worse than our current scientific models which predict an increase of 6 degrees if business as usual continues. What this does not account for is that once the polar ice has melted vast stores of methane permafrost will be released into the atmosphere which are 20 times more effective than carbon dioxide as a greeenhouse gas. This would cause a runaway greenhouse effect which could turn the planet into a Venus hellhole.

      One thing comes to mind is that when a patient is disagnosed with terminal cancer the immediate response is to search for a natural solution to the problem. These solutions include taking vitamins eating and drinking more organic fruits and vegetables adding fiber to the diet along with exercise. These treatments are very effective and are proven to prevent cancer unfortunately it is too late for these treatments to be effective. At this point an Oncologist will recommnend nuclear medicine. Of course the patient will object to radiation treatments because it will make his hair fall out. So is it better to enter heaven bald or hell with all of your hair intact?

      When reading the bible which claims that the temperatures will rise 7 fold and people will curse God and not repent. Most people will view this as a fatalistic prophecy but the fundementalists also view feeding the poor as futile because Jesus said that the poor will be with you always. However these prophecies can just as easily be intepreted as to what will happen if people do not repent so the Bible is not a lie if people repent and global warming does not occur.

      During the times of

      Noah, he was laughed at and criticized and I would imagine that he would have been criticized by the environmentalists of the time who would argue that cutting down all of the earths trees in order to construct boats would be environmentally unacceptable and a more pragmatic solution would be to evacuate to higher ground. However the environmentalists do not realize that trees can always be replaced and if one is really an enironmentalist all one has to do is to make sure that each and every seed is preserved of all the species of trees. Even today we still have this problem as environmentalists refuse to cut down trees and grow new ones in order to capture more carbon than if we allowed existing trees to flourish.

      • Throwing the climate into more and more wobbly balance is definitely possible and is in fact happening. It's happening because of selfishness that God wants people to stop. People are looking out for self apart from others and in the worst cases, apart from everyone else: dog-eat-dog and king of the hill: Capitalism and other selfish religions and ideologies. There are spiritual ways to prevent harmful climate change, but we aren't to do it in a way that the unrepentant may continue on un-separated. We are to warn them. We are to tell them truth. We aren't to force it though.

        In relative terms and using your analogy, we are at the mundane point when the oncologist is recommending radical destruction. However, we really don't need the radical destruction if we have radical-healing transformation. Yes, there is a re-manifestation where the essence of evil is actually removed from the body; but that essence is destruction itself. This concept becomes too esoteric for many, but that's not my fault. They aren't thinking in ultimate terms.

        When reading the bible which claims that the temperatures will rise 7 fold and people will curse God and not repent. Most people will view this as a fatalistic prophecy but the fundamentalists also view feeding the poor as futile because Jesus said that the poor will be with you always. However these prophecies can just as easily be interpreted as to what will happen if people do not repent so the Bible is not a lie if people repent and global warming does not occur.

        You're on to it there. The scripture talks about one who comes along changing the times and such of the prophecy. However, even Jesus said that God is the only one who knows the times. In addition, when Jesus said that the poor would always be with them, Jesus was not talking about forever but for that generation and for Hell, not Heaven, not the New Earth.

        Even the Dispensationalists recognize the "if" prophetic statements: If you don't repent, then ....

        Jesus said, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:23)

        If the sodomizers had listened to Lot even and had repented, the LORD of Abram, Abram's God, would have repented.

        As for the proverbial Noah, if they had listened to him, they wouldn't have needed boats. They would have repented.

        I will say that I agree with you completely that there are short-sighted "environmentalists." They aren't Christians.

    • Thomas James

      Anyway the question is asked "So don't we already have nuclear power?" The truthfull answer to this question is NO we do not really have nuclear power in this world. What we have is nuclear reactors that are only feeble analogies to our chemical power plants. They may be twice as powerfull and the fuel supply lasts a lot longer and they may seem to be high technology because they are proposed to be used but not yet used in our most sophisticated rockets and jet aircraft. What we really have with the exception of our weapons is nuclearized bean fart power.

      The biggest objection to nuclear power is the fear that the reaction would go out of control and that the reactor would blow up like a nuclear bomb. Although the proponents

      of nuclear power deny this and argue about the amazing containment structures that they have built the truth is that true nuclear power blows up like an atomic bomb because it is in fact an atomic bomb that releases a thousand to a million times the energy of a chemical reaction. And true nuclear power has no containment for it is like an external combustion engine for any attempts to contain it would melt the containment structure or melt the rocket nozzle or burn a hole in the piston or combustion chamber so to speak.

      Arthur C. Clarke author of 2001 a Space Odyssee has claimed that the dawn of the space age has not even begun because chemical rockets are much too feeble compared to nuclear power with its thousands or even millions of times the power to send gigantic payloads or even whole cities up into space. It would be like Christopher Columbus trying to colonize America using rowboats powered by human slaves.

      Critics may argue that if I am such a proponent of infinite energy then why not harness the sun which is infinitely more powerfull than all our nuclear weapons combined. That is in fact what I am proposing which is a manned mission powered by atomic explosions to the sun or as close to it as possible in order to install the essential infrustructure of solar panels which massive amounts of energy will be microwaved back to earth all of this using already invented recently declassified 1950's technology developed not by NASA but rather the United States Air Force and their Orion Project. Since the propulsion system is infinitely powerfull no exotic light weight materials will be required and the spaceship can be constructed out of ordinary steel. The crew quarters will comprise of 4 space shuttles which are already tiled to withstand the heat of the sun and will be connected together and put into a spin rotation in order to generate artificial gravity for the long voyage.

      Now let's look at the death toll from radiological fallout from an Orion launch. It's not as bad as it would seem because the launch would be away from population centers such as in the Antartic. The launch pad would be coated with graphite so that no radioactive dirt would be kicked up into the air other than atmospheric dirt that is already in the air. And the cleanest explosive devices would be used which would be thermonuclear fusion bombs although dirty fission devices would have to be used to trigger the thermonuclear explosion. So it has been officially calculated that between 1 to 10 deaths would occur due to premature cancer from radiological polution. Of course this is 1 to 10 deaths too many however according to the ethics of Caiaphas the high priest is it not expedient for one person to die if the whole nation is saved?

      • Thomas,

        I disagree with you here. Christians don't sacrifice others. Caiaphas was wrong.

        We don't need so-called "hi-tech" technological fixes at this point. I'm not a Luddite, per se; but we need to focus on the immediate obstacles.

        If you could bring humanity together to undertake what you are proposing, then humanity would also be capable of correcting well short of having to undertake exactly what you are proposing. We don't lack mundane energy here on Earth. We have all the energy we need right now. The only thing blocking it is the Satanic spirit that is selfishness. Greed is blocking everything that is good.

        Carl Sagan was an atheist who didn't have the answers, not even close.



    • Thomas James

      Yes it is true that only God knows the timetable of the end times. However Jesus said man can predict the seasons. While it is impossible to predict the weather 2000 years in advance weather prediction is reliable in the short term. The problem with conventional computer models of global warming is that they do not take into account the release of methane gasses and they do not take into account the future industrial revolution of India and China that will produce billions of cheap gasoline powered automobiles that even the poorest peasant will be able to afford. Yes of course these countries would be better off investing in a good public transportion system yet no doubt these third world countries will idolize the American system were everyone owns his own car traveling down super highways. India and China may even adopt the German autobahn system of unlimited speed and unlimited pollution and their answer to affordable housing will be to locate the housing in the most remote areas possible and motorists will brag about clocking 1 million miles on their odometers in order to buy their dream homes in the suburbs.

      • Well Thomas,

        Some people can read the signs of the times. Some people can receive exclusive information from what is now referred to as the metaphysical or supernatural.

        Some computer modeling is doing what-ifs that include methane releases, etc. The largest known methane risk lies in the oceans where there are huge methane sheets that if they break away, will boil the oceans and send more methane into the atmosphere than humanity could stand without "space suits" for the time being until some other mundane approach were found, if in time. There are many threats to humanity, such as super volcanoes.

        What goes missing in Christian understanding is that the emotions of humans are not disconnected from seemingly unrelated matter and energy. There are channels that science doesn't know. Will it ever know? Yes, it will know up to a point. What won't happen is that science will be vindicated in its current myopia that says testing yields the only reality. There is a reality beyond all human testing forever. It's no "God of the gaps."

        Don't underestimate the intelligence of the Chinese and Indians. They aren't as locked into the American system as is portrayed in America about them.

        Peace is the answer.