Wake up Tea Party; Rand Paul is no truth-teller

The mainstream news and political commentators were making a big deal yesterday about libertarian Rand Paul winning the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky. I watched his acceptance speech video as nearly the last thing I did before going to bed. Along the way, I did several Twitter tweets (such a flighty term, but...) about some of the things he said. Here they are:

Some of Rand Paul's twisting

  1. Rand Paul says, "You don't see Cuba having the immense wealth we have." Would that have been the case without sanctions? No it would not.
  2. Rand Paul said, "...government...needs to be regulated. It's the Federal Reserve that needs to be restrained...," as is the Fed is government.
  3. The Federal Reserve is not the government. It's a private organization, not the public government, not the people's government.
  4. If Rand Paul thinks unbridled Wall Street banksters weren't responsible for deregulation and the crash, he's an economic-political airhead.
  5. Rand Paul called Hugo Chavez & Evo Morales dictators. They were elected in free & fair elections. Stop spreading lies, Rand. Tell the truth!

The American system is not capitalism

In addition though, he made some really bad and incorrect statements about the American system and what's good and what we should be proud of, etc. He said that the American system is capitalism. It is not. The American system is a mixed-economy and always has been. A capitalist system is very nearly anarchism, as any follower of Murray Rothbard knows full well and as Rand Paul knows too.

The government, system of law and order, of the US is not private

Contrary to anarchism, the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States of America established a central government, a federal government (not a confederation), wherein the supremacy of that federal government is enshrined in the written Constitution by virtue of the fact that, that document states that only the powers not enumerated are reserved by the states and people. The enumerated powers are held by the federal government as supreme sovereign. This should be viewed in light of the fact that the government derives its power by the consent of the people under the representational, democratic, republican (as in non-monarchical), limited form of government laid out in the document. The impetus for establishing the federal government is described in the Declaration of Independence, which is in the eyes of many, not binding under the Constitution in the eyes of that Constitution, per se. Mind you, this is the mundane view of government, with which I do not agree, as I am a theocrat (non-coercive).

The government of the US is collectively owned and operated

Under that federal government, the people's collective (the government) is empowered to create the currency (medium of exchange) and to set its value. It has the power to raise taxes and to form armies, etc. It alone is authorized to engage in foreign policy. It may declare and wage war. It may sign and ratify treaties. These are huge powers that are not necessarily capitalist powers. They are very often used, and legally so, in the creation of socialist enterprises where the people collectively own and operate through their government various organizations they have brought forth through the votes of their elected representatives, whom they may turn out of office via various legal means, not the least of which is simply voting for someone else in the next election-cycle.

If the United States were a capitalist nation, then there would be no collective, public (governmental versus private) ownership and administration of property or services. Is that the kind of government we want?

Government is socialistic or monarchical

The less socialism there is, the more every aspect of property and services is owned and operated by private enterprise with no oversight or regulation by the people through their elected/chosen representatives and administrators. People who have not been directly selected by the people make all the decisions. It is claimed that the people then vote solely through their pocket books or wallets or purses, but is that representative enough? Does it work as the libertarians claim, or does it lead to serfdom? In approaching this question, let's look at what is socialist now and consider whether the laissez-faire approach is better.

Privatizing everything would create a mass prison

Everything now called public would be converted to private (that is privatized). All public roads, sidewalks, bridges, parks, libraries, schools, forests, lakes, rivers, streams, courts, law-enforcement, hospitals, clinics, firehouses, armies, national guards, and banks (unfortunately, they already are), etc., would become the private property of those now in an economic position, whether deserving or not, whether the money to obtain the governmental property or service has been obtain by ethical or unethical means, to "buy" the property or "right" to supply the service. Everything currently paid as taxes would be paid as private fees to private entities whom, again, the people could not select and could not thereafter regulate directly or through their governmental representatives of choice. If you wanted to drive somewhere or walk somewhere, you'd be doing it on someone else's property who could charge you anything he or she or they wanted. If you weren't to have the funds or goods or be willing to do whatever is requested/demanded, you'd be literally stuck unable to change geographical locations. You'd be stuck on your property, if you were to have any.

The libertarian philosophy comes out from the enemy of the people

Now, it is suggested that private owners wouldn't prevent people from moving about and wouldn't overcharge because it would hurt those private owners economically. Well, someone, and many, with deep pockets could, and would, surely wait it out while the poor were coerced into submission just as under feudalism. The rich would afford their private armies and law-enforcement and would run roughshod over the poor under such a system. It's history. Even the fact that there is any coercive capitalism (of which we have plenty) means that there is a degree of wage slavery and elitism invested in the unethical selfish. Libertarianism/objectivism is nothing if not the most self-centered philosophy ever conceived.

The libertarians claim to have a solution for this and that's that free actors could combine to overthrow tyrannical private others. Besides they say, the philosophy of the libertarians is that tyrants aren't to rise up. Well, the philosophy where tyrants don't rise up does not come out from competition with a hoped-for-abided-by rule against winning total monopolistic control. It's counterintuitive.

The system/philosophy/theology where tyrants don't rise up lies in cooperation, not competition and not go-it-alone as much as possible, which brings us right back to socialism, at least the voluntary variety, which is the only true, real, right-minded and right-hearted version in my view.

Capitalism is monopoly by private, unaccountable elitists

Now, Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, try to convince the people that it is not the socialist aspects of the US that has caused the US to be so rich but that is the purely capitalistic aspects. This is nonsense coming out from people who may think they are speaking what's best for the little entrepreneur, although I know better. The fact is that libertarianism is first and foremost bankrolled by monopolists who know better than the little people who are duped into agreeing with what turns them into serfs. It is a calculated deception that these same serf creators claim that socialism leads to serfdom.

Don't mention Scandinavia

Rand Paul mentioned Cuba as proof that socialism doesn't work. Why didn't he point to Finland too or to any of the more democratic socialist nation-states of Scandinavia? Well, he didn't mention those because their standard of living and quality of life is actually usually higher than in the more laissez-faire United States. It's a deliberate act of deception on the Paul family's part. They know better than to offer the people the good seed.

The Koch Brothers

Rand and Ron Paul don't get their bread buttered but by virtue of the superrich monopolists hiding behind think tanks that come up with the spin and deception practiced by the two Paul's, such as the two Koch brothers who own and run Koch Enterprises, an oil industry behemoth which to my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong or not up-to-date on this) is the largest private holding company in the world of its type.

Cato Institute

Those Koch brothers fund the libertarian Cato Institute, which we all know was big with the Tobacco Institute in spreading the lie that smoking and chewing tobacco doesn't cause cancer, etc., when they were hiding the evidence to the contrary – typical drug pushers – very libertarian; false liberty. Oh, don't ever mention the Scandinavians. Only mention Cuba that has been under economic sanctions by the US nearly since Castro threw out the American Mafia overlords who had carved up Cuba into fiefdoms. If you don't believe that, read the real history. I have.

The Paul's never mention France has the world's #1 healthcare system, and it's socialistic

The Paul's rail against social medicine, as if France doesn't have the world's number one rated healthcare system that is single-payer: socialistic. If the Paul's are so into free competition, why are they so un-free with the information? Where were they when the US Senate hearings didn't cover the option of a single-payer system? They were silent is where.

Perception management: Rumsfeld and Rockefeller

They are perception managers every bit as onerous as has been Donald Rumsfeld concerning Rumsfeld's rabid militarism, only the Paul's focus on duping the uneducated concerning a conveniently narrowly defined economics. Rumsfeld has had his hand in that aspect too. He was big on pushing junk, false-food onto unsuspecting consumers (caveat emptor; let the buyer beware; to Hell with any governmental consumer-watchdogs regulating the snake-oil salesmen — running them out of town tarred and feathered and riding on a rail). He and Rockefeller senior have a great deal in common. Selling untested "drugs" made from crude oil was apparently where old John Davison Rockefeller, Sr., got his monopolistic start forming Standard Oil Company, a horizontal and vertical monopoly that made him the richest capitalist on Earth, not including the European banksters, the Rothschilds of course.

The libertarians read the incestuous writings coming out from the Ludwig von Mises Institute and think they've gotten a handle on economics when all they've received is false propaganda consisting of highly selective cases couched in false representations.

Ludwig von Mises Institute cowardly censors

When confronted, they go silent and dark and ignore, in the hope that the people won't see or hear or notice. I know because I've confronted the Ludwig von Mises Institute directly and seen their starting point for debate, which is censorship of all competing ideas before even attempting to address the issues. I had debates with their hirelings off to the side where the points are nothing but danced around. It was a sheer waste of time trying to penetrate the skulls of so-called Christian capitalists (an oxymoron if ever there was one), which brings me to the call for pride by the Paul's.

Ron Paul claims to be Christian, at least in the past. I haven't seen much about it in the last few years likely because I for one have gone right at him on the subject. Word gets around even though the laissez-faire types stay in their closets when it comes time to get down to the very essence of things.

False pride, anti-Christ

As for Rand Paul's pride, there is no such pride, such self-respect, such self-satisfaction in Christianity. Esteeming oneself in light of one's selfishness and competitiveness to acquire, accumulate, and even hoard when there is abject poverty through no fault of the people but that they are under the evil yoke of banksters and their ilk is anti-Christ!

Real Christianity, voluntary socialism

Let me make clear what Christianity is, it's voluntary socialism where everything is understood as belonging to God who is defined by the spirit within as exemplified by the words and deeds of Jesus and his closest disciples when they were most closely following Jesus. Jesus lived from one purse with those disciples. It was not some temporary arrangement. The Jerusalem apostles lived that way until their martyrdoms. Every house, everything any of them possessed was not his own alone but each of his spiritual brothers and sisters. It was voluntary. Those who gave all were closer in spirit. There's no doubt about it. All that's require to realize this is to read it directly in the New Testament Gospels and Book of Acts with an eye to receiving the unfiltered (un-Pauled) facts.

Ayn Rand, sociopath – typical hyper-capitalist

Is it true that someone can rightly call himself or herself "Christian" while not voluntarily giving his or her all? This depends upon where you draw the line in terms of the definition of being Christian. I put it at being as Christlike as possible. It's a goal. It's a relative thing. People are far from it or close to it. At any given moment, some soul on Earth is the farthest from it and another is the closest to it. Souls have come and gone who fit that and everything between the two. Where do Ron Paul and his son, Rand {who reportedly (disputed by Rand himself; a self professed big fan of Ayn Rand) was named after the utterly anti-Christ, Ayn Rand, an open admirer and lauder of sociopathic murderer, William E. Hickman, hardly someone one should care to be named after – rather foreboding to say the least} fit in. They have too much nerve calling themselves disciples of Christ? They are not, far from it.

Now, watch the "Christian" libertarians and "Christian" capitalists be unable to defend themselves against this critique. They follow anti-Christs. They are anti-Christs. I'm saying it, and I'll stand by it before God. I may not be perfect, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand around with my mouth shut while people mislead others about Jesus Christ and the truth about the government of the US and capitalism versus socialism.

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.