"CAP-AND-TRADE IS DEAD" FREE-MARKET CRONYISM SENATE AND TEA PARTY

"Cap-and-trade is dead." Those are the words of U.S. Senator Lindsey O. Graham (Republican of South Carolina). He and Senators John F. Kerry (Democrat of Massachusetts) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Independent of Connecticut) are rolling out a different plan.

According to the Washington Post:

Power plants would face an overall cap on emissions that would become more stringent over time; motor fuel may be subject to a carbon tax whose [sic] proceeds could help electrify the U.S. transportation sector; and industrial facilities would be exempted from a cap on emissions for several years before it is phased in. The legislation would also expand domestic oil and gas drilling offshore and would provide federal assistance for constructing nuclear power plants and carbon sequestration and storage projects at coal-fired utilities.

Ah, pork, as in pork barrel politics, as in "A government project or appropriation that yields jobs or other benefits to a specific locale and patronage opportunities to its political representative." (American Heritage) That's putting it mildly. It's rewarding those who reward Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman as politicians. It's the payoff for all the campaign buyoffs — campaign and other dollars pumped into the coffers of those who are then expected to and almost always do work for legislation that will enrich the contributor at the negative expense of the general population. This case fits that perfectly. Let us not forget that Graham, Kerry, Lieberman, and the other Senators are all investors who do not, I repeat, do not always recuse themselves concerning votes that benefit the industries in which they heavily invest. Am I saying that it is not possible to be impartial for the real benefit of the whole people, for the general welfare, for the common good? I am not. I am saying though that as a general rule, Senators do not do that.

The parochial, greed-driven mind-set is killing humanity. The way the family called humanity should approach these issues is globally such that the optimum decision is taken and then all the locales are aided and assisted by each other so that no area is left behind but rather only benefited. Forget Ricardo's false Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. He was right but only within his narrow construct, not what is best for the human family. In a nutshell, Ricardo put forth the notion of the "comparative advantage." As of the date and time of this writing, the following are the opening two paragraphs on the subject in the Wikipedia:

In economics, the principle of comparative advantage refers to the ability of a party (an individual, a firm, or a country) to produce a particular good or service at a lower opportunity cost than another party. It is the ability to produce a product most efficiently given all the other products that could be produced.[1][2] It can be contrasted with absolute advantage which refers to the ability of a party to produce a particular good at a lower absolute cost than another.

Comparative advantage explains how trade can create value for both parties even when one can produce all goods with fewer resources than the other. The net benefits of such an outcome are called gains from trade. It is the main concept of the pure theory of international trade.

"Gains from trade" has its own entry that includes the following:

Market incentives, such as reflected in prices of outputs and inputs, are theorized to attract factors of production, including labor, into activities according to comparative advantage, that is, for which they each have a low opportunity cost. The factor owners then use their increased income from such specialization to buy more-valued goods of which they would otherwise be high-cost producers, hence their gains from trade. The concept may be applied to an entire economy for the alternatives of autarky (no trade) or trade. A measure of total gains from trade is the sum of consumer surplus and producer profits or, more roughly, the increased output from specialization in production with resulting trade.[4] Gains from trade may also refer to net benefits to a country from lowering barriers to trade such as tariffs on imports.

Please note that autarky doesn't cover gifts or sharing where there is no calculated material or financial gain but a different kind of gain that comes as an aftereffect of altruism where gain for self apart from God is not the incentive for giving or sharing but rather pure love is the incentive. This real form of political economics may become clear to you as you read on.

Comparative-advantage thinking is closed-loop thinking. The debate is deliberately closed off to the competing concept of the giving-and-sharing-all political-economic model. This is because those with a vested, selfish interest in their self-authorized, special privilege and advantage don't want others to rise. In addition, I use the term self-authorized here but it is far more onerous than the term suggests from the common usage. The truth is that the advantages are not due to "pure" economics but rather bloodshed, greed, extortion, intimidation, and other such pure evils. Even in theory though, comparative-advantage thinking is defective. It is not the highest and best.

You didn't vote in the current system. You weren't there the first time a brother ever said, "To Hell with you, you're younger and smaller, and I'm beating you down, terrorizing you, and causing you to be thrown out or driven insane so I can have it all." Now, it's a question as to whether or not your spirit was there and which spirit it was: Cain's or Abel's. It's not exactly what the proverbial Cain did vis-a-vis Abel, but the spirit is not far off from it. You weren't there when "William the Conqueror" came over to England from Normandy with all his second-sons {those who benefited less over on the mainland due to primogeniture (where first sons often inherited it all), which primogeniture Jesus stands squarely against and rightly so} to simply takeover the place, making it a feudal spoils, stealing the Commons by force, ruining the beautiful system of sharing and caring for the common inheritance better than if it was solely one's own. He was just doing what "nobility" had always done — kill for wealth, power, and control. Where did the evil spirit begin? In the vast configuration of things and not being God proper, we assign the concept to the name Satan. Why did the proverbial and literal first Satan go wrong? What was the cause? How did error get into existence? In the future and in eternal terms, how would we know right without wrong having existed and that we overcame it? How did/does God know wrong yet know no wrong? Semantical understanding is the key to all paradoxes.

Some capitalists insist that the spirit of their defined free-market is far from the system of primogeniture and coercive feudalism, but it is not at all. Very few of those self-described capitalists allow for free competition between the system of collective ownership by the whole of humanity with each soul having equal ownership and say as moved by the Holy Spirit of truth and consensus versus those capitalists's system. They insist upon the "right" violently to put down all voluntary collective systems before those do so well that all selfishness is displaced from existence. It is why militant so-called Communism that is known as Marxism/Leninism arose — to fight back. Had the capitalists simply allowed the people to decide, then Acts Communism per Jesus and his closest disciples would have come forth long ago. This though does not mean that God is not going to bring forth that non-coercive Acts Communism (Acts 2:44 and 4:32 are explained below; read on). God will bring it forth, but Satan is coercive even while he is restraining himself, fighting himself, such that his kingdom is divided and will fall — eventually forever once the whole of humanity is awake and on the right side exclusively, which side is totally pacifistic, completely giving and sharing all with all, and absolutely harmless and therefore unselfish in all dealings including sexual (zero depravity; zero sexually caused disease states; e.g., no cancers exclusively from homosexuality). After that, the spirit will prevail within all and the flesh will be healed and whole and necessarily eternally so.

Great fortunes in capitalism, in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned as opposed to collectively owned by the whole of humanity with each soul having equal ownership and say, were founded upon the imperial spirit of the likes of William the Conqueror and all the imperialists down through history. It's the same basically selfish, apostate spirit. Those who see themselves as benefiting from ruthless capitalists have a vested, an ultimately ignorant interest, in maintaining the evil system, the system that, again, is not the highest and best and is hence at the very least relatively evil.

What's the alternative? The alternative has always been the decent-family system. The real family-values system is where the family members don't hold out for trading with each other for gain, even where supposedly both win in the exchange. There is no medium-of-exchange between real-family members. There is no mammon. There are no loans holding out for recompense (usury; interest). There are no coerced taxes. There are no debts of such nature. In the real (that is decent) family-values system, the family members see to the needs of each other out of the true spirit of altruism. This real family spirit microcosmically and macrocosmically is applied from the individual to the whole of humanity. It is the exact opposite of sociopathy, egoism, objectivism, and the like. It has a working conscience. It is full-time compassionate. It is sympathetic and empathetic. It is the sanest state of mind. It chooses right over wrong, good over evil, every time and always. It doesn't fall to evil. That's the direction in which we should be headed. Everyone on the receiving end of this spirit is treated in the best possible way.

It will not be fully manifested where the wrong spirit is lurking about however. No one can do it alone. No one can give and share all alone on this plane of existence with its inhumane Satan as its god and be able to survive and bring forth for all. Those who won't join in the spirit of God cannot obtain the effect here and now of joining in the spirit of God.

The option of the giving-and-sharing-all economy has been denied to all. The Marxists certainly never extended it. Marx was a militant Communist, meaning he was for the proletariat (industrial wage-earners in Marx's usage) violently overthrowing the capitalists to form a dictatorship of the proletariat (those industrial wage-earners). That is far from what Jesus was advocating. That was far from the original family-values system that was before ownership apart from the Commons sprang up out of the spirit of hardening that has cascaded down through history making things worse, compounding the negative reactions to itself (hardness of heart). Christ advocates for each heart to overthrow the selfish spirit within to displace it with the righteous spirit of the giving-and-sharing-all family member. This mental and spiritual condition predates the abused and fallen condition of human kind. We are born into a world where the wholly innocent are abused into mental and spiritual illness. It is a cascade that only enlightenment can retard, stop, and reverse. First though, it must be seen as a real option and not something unobtainable or against some immutable, beastly human nature.

Let's look squarely at the Senators's proposals in this light. The whole system is based upon anti-family values. These Senators aren't looking to produce the best possible system for the whole of humanity. If they were, they'd return to the fork in the road and instead take the family route rather than the greedy, selfish, anti-family route. These Senators are calling for the expansion of domestic oil and gas drilling offshore. Now that's a terrible idea when vastly superior alternatives are available, which they are. Oil and gas are being promoted by anti-family interests where the family is the whole of humanity and not just the families at the top of the predatory and capitalistic food-chain. Those oil and gas interests pay lobbyists and think tanks to dupe other members of humanity into falsely equating drilling with "liberty." Well, I don't license Cain to do what he did to Abel. I don't tolerate it within. I condemn that selfish and harmful behavior. Cain is not "free" to be a sociopath in my Heaven. He isn't in my Heaven unless he's repented in full and in earnest. That said, Cain was the coercive one. I don't go there. I'm not like those Senators who use the violently coercive power of the secular state to get for self apart from God, who is righteousness. Human-family member devised, owned, and operated energy systems where all members of the family that is humanity pay nothing but rather contribute to the family in the righteous spirit, which I've described, is absolutely right there as an option for the people to choose over the self-centered and exclusive model so loved and adored by the banksters and their polluting, corporate, fellow cronies.

Nehemiah 5:7

(7) Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.

Ezekiel 22:12

(12) In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD.

Those Senators "would provide federal assistance for constructing nuclear power plants and carbon sequestration and storage projects at coal-fired utilities." ("Senators to propose abandoning cap-and-trade")

Those are terrible ideas. Nuclear power plants are being promoted by the nuclear-weapons industry and by those who do not want an energy commons. The nuclear cycle is fraught with problems from mining all the way to waste storage. Their mentality is a tragedy for humanity. Coal mining and the whole coal cycle is raping the mountains and poisoning and ruining ecosystems.

How long are the people going to dance around these issues? Why in the world do they imagine themselves as being vested in a greed-based system? The alternative to capitalist greed is not simply Marxism, as the capitalist propagandists would have people believe. It is the real family-values model proposed by Jesus and lived by his original disciples in Jerusalem and that was in the beginning in the Biblical sense.

John 1:1-5

(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(2) The same was in the beginning with God.

(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

(5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Acts 4:32

(32) 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.

Now, that's communism. That's what Jesus and the Jerusalem Apostles practiced. It was not Marxism. They were martyred for, among other reasons, practicing communism. The elitists {Pharisees (Talmudists), Sadducees, scribes, and others} murdered them directly and by proxy for being unselfish examples. So, who then are the libertarian capitalists in light of this fact? Are they selling the right system for humanity? They are not. They are under the spell of the elitists who have paid mesmerizers and conjurers to dupe the masses who are searching around for answers and being readily supplied by the libertarian-capitalist herd.

Christianity is Communist (but not Marxist)

I want to debunk (to use the popular term) the idea that Christianity is not communist.

Acts 2:44

(44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

(Barnes) Had all things common — That is, all their property or possessions. See Act 4:32-37; Act 5:1-10. The apostles, in the time of the Saviour, evidently had all their property in common stock, and Judas was made their treasurer. They regarded themselves as one family, having common needs, and there was no use or propriety in their possessing extensive property by themselves. Yet even then it is probable that some of them retained an interest in their property which was not supposed to be necessary to be devoted to the common use. It is evident that John thus possessed property which he retained, Joh 19:27. And it is clear that the Saviour did not command them to give up their property into a common stock, nor did the apostles enjoin it: Act 5:4, "While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold was it not in thine own power?" It was, therefore, perfectly voluntary, and was as evidently adapted to the special circumstances of the early converts. Many of them came from abroad. They were from Parthia, and Media, and Arabia, and Rome, and Africa, etc. It is probable, also, that they now remained longer in Jerusalem than they had at first proposed; and it is not at all improbable that they would be denied now the usual hospitalities of the Jews, and excluded from their customary kindness, because they had embraced Jesus of Nazareth, who had been just put to death. In these circumstances, it was natural and proper that they should share their property while they remained together.

"Yet even then it is probable that some of them retained an interest in their property which was not supposed to be necessary to be devoted to the common use." I like Barnes {Albert Barnes's Notes on the Bible; Albert Barnes (1798-1870)}, but he's making excuses here too subtle for some to see as misleading or they simply want to wink at each other about it.

When we speak of Christianity and communism, we aren't speaking of possession but ownership — ownership in the worst Biblical sense. What goes on though is that capitalists, many of whom call themselves Christians, want to emphasize the voluntary nature of Christianity while all but ignoring the giving-and-sharing-all, literally communist, nature of Christianity at its highest. They want to aim low, very low, which risks their souls, for sure, the more they acquire and hoard for self apart from the community that is of, and is, God.

Jesus acquired and hoarded absolutely nothing in the capitalist, selfish-spirit sense. He did the exact opposite. He is diametrically opposed to the capitalist spirit even while he does not coerce but leaves that to Satan and rebukes Satan for it, since it is that very Satanic spirit that is at the heart of capitalism in the first place.

This is esoteric, paradoxical, and non able to be reconciled for many. The frame of mind that separates them from Christ is both tiny and immense. Just putting the other first where other is everyone that necessarily includes the self is all it takes. Grasping that though is often fleeting. It's why Jesus's parable of the seed resonates with Christians.

Luke 8:5-8

(5) A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

(6) And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.

(7) And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.

(8) And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The self-styled Christian capitalists are choked at best but in denial about it. They want to contort the spirit, mind, words, and deeds of Jesus and his closest to accommodate the other spirit that is the very choking spirit. They want to place the emphasis upon all sorts of "traditional" notions rather than cutting through to the full essence of what Christ said and is still saying. They plead in their minds: "Please don't make me give and share all. Please don't make me put my all into Matthew 25:33-36."

Matthew 25:33-36

(33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

(34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

(35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

(36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

The so-called purest capitalist mind-set is always first and foremost all about gaining for self apart from all others. Perhaps after amassing for self, then the capitalist will get around to being concerned for the others. They rationalize it in many ways that dismiss the spirit of Christ. They choke it. It isn't forthcoming. Their actions are thorny. They are the goats. Their system stands squarely against the voluntary, hence real, communist way of Jesus. They don't want it. They reject it. They don't want the Christian Commons. They don't work for it. They work against it. They say, don't make me. Jesus doesn't make them. He tells them how they ought to be and then let's them proceed into the ditch if they are Hell bent. So be it. The separation occurs. The righteous and redeemed are saved from the wicked.

Jesus acquired everything via the voluntary, giving-and-sharing-all mental-and-spiritual direction, which does manifest in the most tangible ways. The metaphorical throne (dignity, personage, power, rank, sovereignty) of God is shared with Jesus and God, and Jesus will share it fully with those who become as close as close can be to them.

Revelation 3:21

(21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Albert Barnes was rationalizing because he didn't want to be confronted by the full implications of the whole message of Jesus. The highest Heaven is voluntary, non-militant communism. There is no "mine and not yours" in the New Heaven and New Earth of Jesus Christ and his and my God. It is a spiritual condition where all those who are there have risen to that level that I've just described as the real-family spirit and where humanity needs to go in feelings thoughts, words, and deeds and nothing but.

"It is evident that John thus possessed property which he retained, Joh 19:27." This is to completely miss the one soul, one mother, one father, spirit of oneness permeating Jesus's revelation. The mother of Jesus is my mother too. She's also my sister and daughter and cousin.

John 19:27

(27) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

You're thinking Barnes's point is in "his own home." It is. However, my point applies to "his own home" too. Even Barnes said, "It is evident that John thus possessed property." Barnes misses the whole point of Acts 4:32. "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." John possessed a home that was not his own. His home was "common" property of all Christians. I guarantee that, that was and still is the true Christian spirit, just as "one heart and of one soul" means Mary was also John's mother, yet Mary was not his mother in the mundane, immediate, biological sense. She was his mother nonetheless.

Barnes goes on: "...it is clear that the Saviour did not command them to give up their property into a common stock...." Jesus allowed for relative revelation within the hearts and minds of those he was teaching else no one could ever hope to enter into Heaven. It's why he lauded the actions of Zacchaeus, the customs/tax collector, the publican.

Luke 19:8-10

(8) And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

(9) And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

(10) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Zacchaeus didn't say, "I give everything I have to the cause of the poor," but that doesn't mean that had he said that, Jesus wouldn't have been all the more pleased. Jesus didn't order Zacchaeus to do anything in the commonly understood sense of order, yet he did command Zacchaeus's heart. He didn't order the rich man but he also didn't command his heart because the rich man turned his back on Jesus and went away caring more about his worldly possessions than becoming wholly righteous.

He commanded them to be one.

Mark 10:21

(21) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Really, where is the ownership in that? It is a call to have faith in "owning" nothing for self apart from God.

Barnes points to Ananias and Sapphira as probable proof that giving and sharing all was not a commandment.

Acts 5:1-4

(1) But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

(2) And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

(3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

(4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Barnes misses the point there. Had Zacchaeus gone back on his word, he would have been lying before God. The issue was that Ananias and Sapphira had said that they would sell and give all but sold and held back some in what they thought would be secret. Could they have sold and given some after having said they would do that and would that have been much as Zacchaeus had done? Yes, they could have done that. Would that have made them as Barnabas? No it would not have put them on par with Barnabas.

Acts 4:36-37

(36) And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

(37) Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Yes, Christianity is "perfectly voluntary." Jesus didn't coerce. "...was as evidently adapted to the special circumstances of the early converts." This is more rationalizing. It is more diminishing the high calling. It's putting a bushel over the light. Barnes wasn't about to give and share all with Christians. He was clinging to material possessions calling them his sole property regardless of whether there were others who would treat his possessions via the Golden Rule as understood in light of the New Commandment whereby the servant of each other treats the property with greater care than he would treat the thing than if it were solely his. This spirit is lost on the likes of Milton Friedman (dead), Murray Rothbard (dead), Ludwig von Mises (dead), Ayn Rand (dead), Friedrich Hayek (dead), Alan Greenspan, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, the Cato Institute, Lew Rockwell, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan (dead), Peter Schiff, Chicago School, the Tea Party, 9/12 Project, John Birch Society, Oath Keepers (police and veterans against violating the Bill of Rights), Patriot movement, Militia movement, Republican Party, Libertarian Party, Constitutional Party, David Icke, David Duke, the Birthers, Richard Mack (former Graham County sheriff, Arizona), W. Cleon Skousen (dead), Sarah Palin, and on and on. This is not to say that none of these people ever had, or has, anything correct to say. Telling partial-truths is part and parcel of all ideologies. Satan does it all the time.

Llaissez-Faire Capitalism: A Form of Tyranny

For instance, there is tyranny in evil. It's inherent. Unfortunately, tyranny is a misunderstood, misplaced label. Evil is likewise misplaced. Tyranny is being used as that which is anti-laissez-faire capitalism, but laissez-faire capitalism is a form of tyranny of those who do not believe that the whole of creation is the rightful inheritance of those who will share it in like-spirit. The Tea Party Movement's members are being misled into believing that such collective ownership is evil when, in very fact, God owns the whole and God asks every soul to join with God as one soul, the spirit of righteousness.

Usury

Truth is mixed in with this, however. The truth is that lending is wrong relative to giving and sharing all. Lending for selfish gain is even worse yet. It's called usury. All interest on loans is usury. Usury was not meant to mean excessively high interest on loans. It meant and still rightly means any interest, period. So we have the Federal Reserve System devised by usurers to enslave the whole people of the United States under a system of usury that the privatizers (the Fed) controls without audit or oversight. That's immoral. That's evil through-and-through. However, their are those who conflate the hatred for the evil that is usury with the evil of racism and being anti-ethnic Jews, etc. One can certainly be opposed to usury while being also opposed to racism. I'm living proof of that fact. Therefore, do not be lulled into a stupor by those who loosely throw around term such as anti-Semitic at those who stand squarely opposed to the Federal Reserve System, which the Austrian School and others rightly say is not Federal but private and which has no real reserve but simply the power to "create" money by making entries in it's checking account. So you see, the Austrian School "economists" are partly right. As for anti-usury being anti-Jew, it's ironic then that the Bible of the Jews rails against usury.

(Exodus 22:25) If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

(Leviticus 25:36) Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

(Leviticus 25:37) Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

(Deuteronomy 23:19) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

(Deuteronomy 23:20) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

(Nehemiah 5:7) Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.

(Nehemiah 5:10) I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

(Psalms 15:5) He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

(Proverbs 28:8) He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.

(Isaiah 24:2) And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.

(Jeremiah 15:10) Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.

(Ezekiel 18:8) He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

(Ezekiel 18:13) Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

(Ezekiel 18:17) That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

(Ezekiel 22:12) In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD.

(Matthew 25:27) Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

(Luke 19:23) Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

That last two verses are especially important because as with all of Jesus's parables, they are designed to throw off the hardhearted who invariably misinterpret Jesus, as Jesus made clear.

Mark 4:11-12

(11) And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

(12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Some Jews and most of the capitalists of today argue that Matthew 25:27, Luke 19:23, and the other verses on usury point out that the sin of usury applies at most concerning brothers and not strangers and that in all likelihood, Jesus condoned such usury. However, Jesus pointed out, and still points out, to them that everyone is everyone's neighbor and brother.

Luke 10:25-37
(25) And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

(26) He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

(27) And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

(28) And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

(29) But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

(30) And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

(31) And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

(32) And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

(33) But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

(34) And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

(35) And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

(36) Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

(37) And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Taxes

In addition, taxes are wicked.

Matthew 17:25-26

(25) 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?

(26) Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

You see, the children, meaning the children of God, meaning every one of us who accepts it, are supposed to be free of such. Only the wicked have placed the yoke of coerced taxes upon anyone. It does not mean not to give and to share all. In fact, where there is giving and sharing all of the like-spirit, there is no lending, hence no usury, and there are no taxes, because there is no money or mammon but rather only the real-family relationship where family doesn't charge family.

Conspiracy Theorists

Much of this is dismissed by word-game players as the stuff of "conspiracy theorists" where that label is a pejorative. The truth though is that people do conspire to do evil. To these people who throw around the label and ask them what is the meaning of all the prosecuting attorneys in the world leveling the charge "Conspiracy to ...."? Fill in the blank with whatever crime. The truth is that the George W. Bush administration most certainly did gather its heads around a table to decide upon how to proceed with their criminal conspiracy to have the Empire more thoroughly dominate the globe.

9/11 Was an Inside Job

The Tea Partiers are also largely aware that 9/11 was an inside job to some degree. They want a new investigation. If they get into power, they'll have it. However, money will still be making the rules until the people throw off the old heaven and earth for the New. (See: 9/11 INSIDE JOB BY THE GLOBAL PLUTOCRATS)

The Federal Reserve

The George W. Bush administration is only but one example of millions and billions of conspiracies of one sort or another. There is no doubt whatsoever that G. Edward Griffin is right with his description of what transpired at Jekyll Island concerning the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax. In his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, Griffin (one of my friends on Facebook) lays out the conspiracy. The Wikipedia has it essentially right, as follows:

The title refers to the November 1910 meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia, of seven bankers and economic policymakers, who represented the financial elite of the Western world.[29][30] The meeting was recounted by Forbes founder B. C. Forbes in 1916,[31] and recalled by participant Frank Vanderlip as "the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System".[32] Griffin states that participant Paul Warburg describes the Jekyll Island meeting as "this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy".

So, we have plenty of truths coming out from certain movements and groups, but those truths are mixed in with error. The opposition then takes that there are errors and paints everything with that brush all in an attempt to deflect the truths. Therefore, if there is one racist saying anything that is the same as a non-racist, the non-racist is also always wrong. So, if a racist says that the George W. Bush administration trampled on the Bill of Rights, it must not be true. However, it is true whether a racist says it or not. If Hitler said "it's snowing" when it was snowing, then it must not have been snowing even though it was. That's the mentality we are dealing with here. It shows up in the "highest" places too.

Waco

What the Federal government under neocon Bill Clinton (a DLC founding member) did to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, appalled me at the time. They treated those families worse than they treated Manuel Noriega of Panama for crying out loud. It was completely unnecessary. I didn't agree with David Koresh, but there is no way in Hell that "liberals," such as George McGovern, would have ever authorized such tactics. Jimmy Carter wouldn't have done it either. There were just so many other approaches that could have been taken to avoid all the death and destruction.

The Birthers

As for the Birthers, it's strange that they believe that the powers that be planned over 48 years ago to have a particular non-natural-born American, half-black man assume the office of the President. Why didn't they just have him be born in Hawaii? What's the point? How were all the copies of the newspapers made to state that Barack Obama was born in the U.S. when he was not? This one is almost as incredible as the idea that there is no global warming/human-influenced climate change (the oil, coal, and gas industries's favorite).

Global-Warming Denial

We have people who are just scratching the surface concerning the political-economy who are buying wholesale everything being said by the first group that brought their attention to anything that rings true. There is no global warming because Al Gore has to be with the banksters with all of his heart, mind, and soul. However, that's exactly the same "use one brush to paint the opposition" being used by those who are saying there's no elitist conspiracy (their just extremely rich by totally fair and honest means as opposed to sociopathic tendencies). These Tea Partiers aren't looking deep enough yet. They haven't followed the money behind the think tanks that are coming up with the slogans and ideological planks. Behind the Cato Institute is the mega-rich oil-industry family, the Koch family (pronounced coke). Also behind Cato is and was Big Tobacco. We all know how the Tobacco Institute lied for decades about the harmfulness of Tobacco smoking and chewing, etc. So, why not slowdown and ponder the harmfulness of oil pollution and who stands to benefit? It's not painting it all with one brush in every way possible. I guarantee you though that behind the libertarian movement, you'll find the deepest mammon-filled pockets on earth. They work both sides of the street. It's called hedging. That's what they do. They have a bought-and-paid-for fallback position on everything. At least they want to. They work at it.

Corporatism

The Tea Party is so anti-government but its not so anti-corporatism. The 50 largest entities in the world are corporations and not nation-state governments: talk about needing to wake up!

New World Order

As for the New World Order, well, how many times does Prime Minister Brown have to say it before it's no longer a figment of the libertarians's imagination? You have New York Times writers writing as if there is no such thing in the offing while politician after politician continues referring to the coming "New World Order"? What kind of thought termination is that? It's the hypnotic kind. Here we have people saying that what is, isn't. Well, forget it. I'm not under the spell. Prime Minister Brown keeps talking about exactly what his group intends: a New World Order, which means the old one, the one of sovereign nation-states with self-determination, is to be done away with.

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years; but, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. — David Rockefeller, June 1991, speaking to the Bilderberg Group.

"...supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." The Hell it is. That means exactly what the Patriot Party members claim it does. It means one-world government with the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty being ceded to the one-worlders, who are not at this moment particularly enamored of the U.S. Bill of Rights or one-person, one-vote, etc., but more interested in corporate power under the bankers and their hired, supposed, intellectual elite. So why lie about it?

As for me, I believe in the New World Order of Jesus Christ as he prophesied. It sounds like Heaven to me. I hope I can come to measure up. I'm still working out my punishment for all my ignorance falling to the abusers, etc. I also know that even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were right in the midst of America, England, and Israel, then Noah, Daniel, and Job "shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness." (Ezekiel 14:14)

Deregulation

When did these people (the Tea Party) mostly begin to "wake up" in their minds? It wasn't until after the recent economic collapse for most. So ask yourself why that is. The answer is that it wasn't until thing started hitting them directly rather then via sympathy or empathy that they started asking, seeking, and knocking. This should be a sign to them that had they all been looking out for each other all along, they wouldn't have found themselves in foreclosure on account of mortgage securitization that was deliberately untraceable and hence toxic and largely worthless: the bubble. It was the deregulation starting with Reagan and running through the late 1990s and 2000s that allowed for it. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Yet the libertarians are being hypnotized into singing the mantra of deregulation of all things — not awake at all.

Single-Payer

More bankruptcies are caused by medical bills in the U.S. than from any other cause. Of course you could say unemployment and underemployment after incurring large, no-longer serviceable debt is the cause, but the point is still that medical is the largest or most frequent debt that becomes unserviceable. However, the Tea Partiers are being hypnotized by the rich in the medical industry to stand opposed to universal healthcare and especially that of the single-payer variety. They don't stop to think or to probe concerning all the other nations and their systems and how those systems have impacted upon the citizens and organizations/businesses in those nations. They have zero bankruptcies in France from medical debts because there are no medical debts. France has the highest rated medical system in the world, contrary to what you hear here in the U.S. that the U.S. system is the best. The U.S. is the best for the very richest perhaps (although I doubt even that).

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck recently had a great time putting down the greatest anti-trust (anti-corporate monopolist) in American history: Teddy Roosevelt. I'm not a TR fan for his militant imperialism, that was also probably unrivaled in U.S. presidential history. However, Glenn Beck is crazy to be calling for people to loosen their inhibitions against unbridled selfishness. Beck would be eaten alive if he were to get his wish. The people would devour FOX and its parent corporation that's under the media monopolist, Rupert Murdoch.

Stimulus Spending

There are also a slew of falsehoods about stimulus spending. The problem is not and never has been with stimulus spending, per se. It has always been with where the money is spent. Unfortunately, too little was spent and of that, way too much went into banks that have just been allowed to pay out bonuses and to sit on the funds, just shift it around from one speculative so-called investment to another, benefiting not the common tax-payers but the Wall Street banksters and their sycophants and lapdogs.

These people are falling for the same Wall Street tricksters who railed against the New Deal in the first place. They don't know how to think about the people's government. They need to listen to the character, George Bailey, in It's a Wonderful Life:

THE NEW DEAL REDUCED UNEMPLOYMENT PERHAPS 15%+

Well, first of all, there is a grave understatement in those arguments about what the New Deal actually did. And that understatement is typically because the unemployment figures that many people are accustomed to using for the 1930s don't count people who actually worked for the New Deal. This is Michael Steele's distinction between jobs and work. But people who were building the Lincoln Tunnel or the Triborough Bridge or the aircraft carrier Yorktown are counted as work relief and not as employed, and there were many millions of those. And when you put them into the figures, you find that the New Deal actually reduced unemployment from 25 percent in 1933 to about-to less than ten percent in 1936. It went up again in '37 and then came back down again to about ten percent before the war. So, a major, major improvement in unemployment did occur under the New Deal.
(Source: James Galbraith on Democracy Now)

Privatization

Look, it's supposed to be your collective government. The public things are yours. You own them. At least you used to before the privatizers were allowed to swoop in to buy them up at pennies on the dollar, just like the vulture, Mr. Potter, in that same old movie. Potter is William the Conqueror, the Commons thief. Potter's name and his real estate development where Potter was as a modern-day slumlord comes from the Bible.

Matthew 27:3-10

(3) Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

(4) Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

(5) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

(6) And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

(7) And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

(8) Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

(9) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

(10) And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

Zechariah 11:12-13

(12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

(13) And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

There are various explanations for why it shows in Zechariah and not Jeremiah verbatim. One explanation is that Jeremiah was used generically for the books of the prophets. Another explanation is that Jeremiah was the actual author of a book that literally contained the words. Yet another explanation is that Jeremiah authored the end of Zechariah.

Social Security

Social Security was invented because Big Business didn't want to cover everyone having a pension. Why in the world would you listen to the same spirit of the vultures calling to privatize your public (the system you own) pension system? That system is solvent. The vultures have seen to it that it has been used to over-leverage the general revenue. They're lying to you about it so you'll go over to the dark side some more, falsely imagining that greater selfishness is wiser. It isn't. It's utterly stupid and evil.

Now, I said that Jesus is against taxes and he is. However, he's for communal living. He's not for private capital over that communal approach. He just knew, back when, that the common people wouldn't all grasp his revelation. It's deeper than that though. He taught in parables so the hardhearted would be separated out. It's going to happen again. I promise you. It isn't even necessary to speak in parables with this generation because the level of ungodliness is reaching exponential proportions. It's why there is such lewdness as the "Gay Pride" parades becoming more and more prevalent at exactly the time that the people need universally to repent. You have people saying that the sky won't fall if all things homosexual are promoted as perfectly good; but the proverbial sky is falling, and it most certainly is due to wrong thinking that includes all this nonsense that homosex, adultery, fornication, pederasty, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, orgies, and on and on is all harmless, etc. It's not harmless. There are and will be negative consequences for all of it. There always have been, and nothing has changed about that.

Military Interventionism

Something the anti-Tea Partiers don't seem to want to dwell upon much is the Tea Party's anti-military interventionism. The Tea Partiers are not interested in fighting the Zionist's war against the whole of Islam. The Christian Zionists have clearly lost this group. These people are not neocons.

The whole truth though comes out from God through Christ and their Holy Spirit.

The abuse people have suffered prevents them from standing up for it though. The abused often, however, when seeking solutions, do end up realizing that the evil that is selfishness is what needs to be rooted out of the soul of humanity. It must be done voluntarily and within each and every soul.

Unfortunately, when seeking answers, many people stop looking after they've been fed what is less than the real solution. They are fed the same errors that went into causing the problems. They are fed misinformation about Jesus's message. They are fed a half-truth story about the founding of the United States and about all the various ideologies. They are told that they are seeing the light for the first time when in fact what they are seeing is just another direction in the dark and will not end up satisfying.

Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers were not primarily Christian, at least not the main leaders. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine, Hamilton, Madison, and others were Deists, despite what some people calling themselves "Christian" say about them. Most of them were also Freemasons, meaning humanists, where Jesus was not a humanist, per se, in the sense meant by those Founders. The Christianity of Jesus is not consistent with what is called the Renaissance, Enlightenment, or Reformation.

Freemasonry

By the way, both Truman and MacArthur were of the highest ranks of Freemasonry. FDR was also 32nd degree. I won't go into all of that here, but suffice it to say that the syncretism of the Freemasons/Illuminati (which does exist in spirit if not in name) and their humanistic tendencies are a huge problem that must and will be dealt with. The United States was founded on Freemasonry, humanistic, so-called Enlightenment principles. The Deists's god is hands-off. They falsely imagined that they had come out from the darkness of the Middle Ages they called the Dark Age. In fact, they stepped from one darkness to others: The Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment. (See: 9/11 INSIDE JOB BY THE GLOBAL PLUTOCRATS)

See also:
Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged

Donate


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.