Solution: Border Patrol, States, Narco-Terrorism, Jews, Banksters, Hedonism, etc.

I want to say a few things on the issues surrounding the Arizona illegal/undocumented alien/immigrant issue and all the attendant coverage and actions/inactions it has engendered.

First, I come down foursquare against the recent Arizona statute, but I do not subscribe to every alleged argument against it. For instance, every state has the right to enforce federal laws. I don't understand why the "left" has decided to use the contrary argument against the Arizona statute. It's ridiculous on its face. The idea that only federal agencies and agents can or should be the ones to decide when and where to enforce federal law it bizarre, to say the least. It's such a non-starter argument that I don't even want to show all the ways in which those who support it are being inconsistent. All one need do is consider all the federal laws where the lefties want the states enforcing those laws fulltime and regardless of federal action or inaction. It happens that many of those federal laws are mirrored in one way or degree or another in various state laws, but even where they are not, those leftist still want them enforced.

Please also see:

"Jack Cafferty knows Jack about Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and the Fourth Amendment"

and

"The "race card" and "death panels," the AZ-immigration so-called law and healthcare-reform analogy doesn't work"

Here are some related posts on other sites that contain issues I want to bring to your attention:

"Man with neo-Nazi ties leading patrols in AZ," by Michelle Price. Associated Press. July 17, 2010.

"The Big Lie - The Rise of the Extreme Right," by Rodolfo F.Acuña. San Fernando Valley Sun. July 7, 2010.

"Mexican Drug Cartel solders shot in Arizona desert: Los Zetas officer says shoot to kill Americans," by Michael Webster. American Chronicle. July 11, 2010.

You can also do a search on "Hayek" on this site to see more info and to see how this ties in with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (Thatcherism and Reaganism — dreadful ideologies). Then use your browser's text find or search feature to locate Hayek. Search on the other names and terms too, as you are so inclined.

Christian Identity

You will see in those articles, as with my own posts to which I've linked above, that there is a major issue with tying "conservatives" all together with various factions within them. Not only that but many libertarian capitalist (who themselves are lumped in with both conservatives and/or liberals depending upon how one is defining those terms at any given moment) lump all National Socialists in with "liberals" solely on account of some connection that can only be made within narrowly define contexts between "liberalism" and Nazism. The term "Socialists" is conveniently used as always associated with Hitlerism, which association is hardly always the case or even the predominant leaning of most of the people in the world who lean to socialism. It doesn't work any more than does lumping all socialists in with Stalinism. Hitler and Stalin were bitter enemies afterall too. How in the world do the libertarian capitalist sort that out without admitting that there are also libertarian socialists? If they don't bother with it, they haven't worked hard enough at it or really don't want to expose the whole truth to the people. It is my contention that the leaders of the libertarian capitalists absolutely want to keep the general public in the dark on these distinctions as much as possible and that the disciples of those leaders fall into a mind-set where they refuse to question the motives of their gurus such as those of the Mont Pelerin Society: Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman (frown upon by many because of his monetarism), Murray Rothbard, etc.

Now, what must be understood here and cannot be avoid simply in fear of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League or Jewish Defense League (whether cyber/Internet or otherwise) is that all of these men were Jews. Of course, many of their detractors were and are Jews as well, so there's no racism or anti-Semitism or anti-Jew in it, per se. There are racists amongst their detractors, but then again, there are racists amongst the detractors of their Jewish detractors.

Why does it matter that the Mont Pelerin Society was founded by Jews and that so many libertarian capitalist are non-Jews and actually profess to be Christians?

Well, it matters because Jesus was not only of direct Jewish descendent i, but Judaism ii stands against all usury iii applied to any loan of a brother to a brother, and Jesus teaches us that the terms "neighbor" and "brother" and like terms, if we are to avoid hypocrisy, extend to the whole of humanity - a truly beautiful concept that humanity has yet to adopt but must if it is to survive in the flesh and in the spirit of righteousness. Otherwise, major parts of humanity will be split off and suffer, which is the meaning of Hell versus Heaven.

  1. meaning here that he came out of the House of David, who came out of the House of Judah from whom the term "Jew" derives
  2. the original version, not the Babylonian Talmudic with which Jesus had so much trouble - the Babylonian Talmudist were the Pharisees who lobbied the Roman Empire to bring about the death/silence of Jesus Christ, as prophesied in the Torah as pointed out directly by Jesus himself in the New Testament
  3. any interest whatsoever on any debt

So, knowing this, how can anyone calling himself or herself Christian follow the anti-Christ founders of the Mont Pelerin Society? The answer is that anyone following the anti-Christ capitalist teachings of those founders of the Mont Pelerin Society are not truly Christians at all. All true Christians find the teachings of the libertarian capitalists abhorrent.

It's important to add a few other names here. Murray Rothbard is one of them. He was instrumental in the founding of the Cato Institute that has been so heavily endowed by the Koch brothers of Koch Industries. Rothbard was also a Jew as are the Koch brothers. Rothbard left the Cato Institute over issues of anarchism (to which he subscribe albeit qualified with his love of the dreaded capitalism). The Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell have seemingly more followers of Rothbard now, and Cato is looked sideways upon by "purists." The purists see big problems with the Corporatism of the Koch's, and rightly so. The "purists" don't like the cronyism that attends Big Corporatism, meaning they don't like how big corporations buy government, hence the "purists" stronger anti-state stance.

This though raises more issues of anti-Christianity since Jesus teaches us to pray for the kingdom of God to come to the Earth, which kingdom is nothing less than good government or the whole of the right law written on every heart. It is government. It is the one and only state. There is no capitalism in it at all - not a trace.

We should also mention Rupert Murdoch here and his FOX News channel. Rupert is a Jew who claims to profess Jesus Christ. His network is a decided platform of various "talking heads" such as Glenn Beck, who preaches that "liberals" and "progressives" are socialists and necessarily evil. Beck is a hodge-podge of disjointed, selective, very limited readings of history. Murdoch uses Beck and others to mislead the masses down the capitalist path but only in the most Murdochian self-serving ways.

Murdoch is no "purist," not that that's a good thing, but rather a Zionist, who doesn't care about the real facts but only spewing the propaganda to the extent he can get away with it, which is a great deal since many people have been led to believe that they shouldn't ever turn on anything but FOX. It's a great brainwashing admonition. Dick Cheney, a hugely self-serving empire builder, had his entourage arrange that FOX News be on the TV when Cheney walked into any hotel room rented for Cheney. The other FOX viewers were told this so they too could be FOX purists and conveniently and selectively could put aside Christ's teachings - not hear any contrary, correct version.

What's my overall point here? The banksters are running the planet. Their institution is anti-Christ and anti-humanity. The whole system is geared to deceiving the masses into accepting the lead of the banksters. Those banksters would not exist were it not for capitalism itself.

The objective of the Zionists is the destruction of the spirit of Jesus Christ. The spirit of Jesus is the undoing of the Zionist Project. The Zionist Project was funded and promoted and still is by the top banksters in the world. It's all that simple.

Capitalism is inherently a sinful mentality. At the same time coercive socialism is a sinful mentality. The solution lies in each and every human being converting from selfishness to unselfishness. To understand the true meaning of unselfishness here it is necessary to read and to grasp the Gospel According to Saint John, who lived with Jesus and who understood Jesus's message better than did any other of Jesus's immediate disciples/Apostles - certainly better than did Saul of Tarsus. Perhaps James, the brother of Jesus, was next in understanding followed by Peter. I put Paul after each of the aforementioned.

In Paul in particular, there is a great confusion added concerning issues of violence, greed, and other depravities. Paul rush to bring forth and rush to write without depth of qualification and tying in with the actual words of Jesus. Paul's writings (even debated as whether or not properly attributable to him) have been used by the violent and the greedy and the sexually self-licensed (hyper-antinomians) because Paul leaves himself open to such. Of course, Jesus is misused and abused, so one cannot say that this all is entirely Paul's fault. It is though safe to say that without Paul, the Roman Catholic popes for example would have had a much rougher go of it in bringing about their worldly and strange and sexist empire that has attracted so many pedophiles and other twisted, anti-Christ souls. Likewise, the Calvinists would not have arisen with their predetermined Protestant Work Ethic adherents enjoying the material fruits of their selfish, anti-Christ capitalist pursuits.

As a solution to capitalism and coercive socialism, I've developed a real liberal plan ("liberal" consistent with the proper meaning of the term per Isaiah 32).

Isaiah 32 KJV

(1) Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. (2) And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. (3) And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. (4) The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. (5) The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. (6) For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. (7) The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. (8) But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. (9) Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters; give ear unto my speech. (10) Many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women: for the vintage shall fail, the gathering shall not come. (11) Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins. (12) They shall lament for the teats, for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine. (13) Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city: (14) Because the palaces shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; (15) Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest. (16) Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field. (17) And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. (18) And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places; (19) When it shall hail, coming down on the forest; and the city shall be low in a low place. (20) Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters, that send forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass. [emphasis added]

Now, that's not easy reading for those not accustomed. What it says in a nutshell is that selfishness is evil and unselfishness the opposite. To fully understand the terminology though, one must cross-reference, which is what Jesus did as no other before or since. To put it as succinctly as possible, Jesus was, and remains, the best theologian who ever lived. So if you are interested, and you should be, you can cross-reference "bounty" and "churl" and like terms to see how the whole context unfolds. This method is used and is required to understand scripture and to not be misled by bad theologians, such as John Hagee (the rabid, self-styled Christian-Zionist).

To help you begin to understand how to read and speak the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the term "liberal" in Isaiah 32 means the bountiful-minded in the complete absence of anything vile in the eyes of righteousness. The "churl" there is the exact opposite, meaning an acquirer and hoarder for self apart from righteousness, which righteousness is God proper.

That understanding of God, by definition, is contained in the understanding of John. That understanding conflates righteousness with "love" and many other synonyms. This is what I term semantical theology.

It has taken me a lifetime to arrive at this, so please don't feel diminished if you don't get it all at once. If you aren't getting any of it at all though, you need to do some serious soul searching. You need to ask yourself whether you are demonic or demon-possessed/misled.

If you don't believe in spirit but rather insist that all things are only matter, you miss out on enlightenment and end up in the appropriate place (a very inappropriate place in another sense). That's the nature of the separation, and I'm all for it.

The Christian Commons Project is the plan.

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.