Tom Usher wrote or added | You might not like Alex Jones, but he does stand up against the war parties. He's not anti-government. He says he's for limited and small government. He seems to want to say that the reason he's that way is because he just doesn't trust big business or big government. He uses history to come to those conclusions.
I agree with people who are just anti-bad government. I love good government whether big or small. As a Christian, I have to say that the kingdom of God is huge and good government. The bad government comes under the proverbial Satanic spirit, by definition.
If it's bad, it's not God's doing. This is paradoxical, and seems to be beyond the grasp of many. It is reconcilable though if only people would be willing to approach it. They have to ask themselves why they stand off complaining about God. They don't have the right concepts in their heads. God is pure goodness. If we fail in the face of that, we made the wrong choice(s) and didn't learn the right lessons.
This linked article is written by a libertarian (capitalist variety). I'm not one of them. No real Christian can be. Jesus is anti-capitalism whether any libertarians like it or not.
Austrian economics + neocon foreign policy = almost the worst possible combination :(
July 13 at 9:49pm • Like •
Only almost? I hate to think about worse than that, but there is the bottom of Hell. Let's not go there again. We've been there and told them what they needed to here, but they just ran away into the darkness. We had to come back out. If our words planted seeds and there was any futile soil there, they'll follow the path up we left leaving.
Peace to you, Thomas.
July 13 at 11:50pm • Like •
And peace be with your spirit.
What is worse? Complete corrupt de jure oligarchy, where there is a private power elite that runs everything legally but also openly for profit and the police/military/courts work for them. We could end up there. With Austrianism, at least there is the facade of equality before the law, and their deflationary economic policy could make living conditions temporarily better (before total privatisation eventually leads to ... well ... the corrupt power elite grabbing all the wealth and enshrining itself in power via control of "republican" institutions).
I am not convinced Schiff would not go along with open oligarchy anyway. Isn't he like a hedge fund manager?
July 14 at 10:02am • Like •
I wrote "futile" when my mind was thinking "fertile." It was very late at night for me. Did you see it? Subconsciously, that means I was also thinking there's a place where speaking to the demons (fallen angels who in this case are spirits of human beings) to get them to change back is futile. Therefore, Jesus shook the dust from his feet and when on to more fertile ground where souls will actually hear and recognize the saving voice.
As for Peter Schiff, he's one of my Facebook "friends." I haven't interacted with him, yet though. He can't escape what you've said. His ideology leads to it even though he would disagree. He doesn't see it or doesn't want to. The only thing holding it back is our contrary spirits, emanating from God in our sights.
He's a wheeler-dealer, and in his philosophy, there's nothing wrong with that at all, at least how he believes he's practicing it. I really can't answer to the "hedge fund" aspect because for one, I think the term is vacuous under the law. I do have a concept(s) in mind when the term is raised, but I trust you agree that where a "hedge fund" starts and leaves off is very difficult to determine much in reality because the law is so pathetically weak in the area. I could flesh this out, but I'm sure you get the point. He doesn't seem to target "hedge fund" investor types but more prudent-minded, long-haul investors who are not in it for the obvious scam. He is a capitalist though and therefore doesn't view capitalism, per se, to be one huge Ponzi scheme the way we know that it is.
My impression of him is that he is too conservative (financial investments) to go for hedge funds. Hedge funds are bubbles based mostly on the USD, and one assumes from listening to him that he sees the USD crashing within the decade, although he won't time it but rather get out and stay out to wait it out.
He has faith in the global economy but not the dollar (US governmental management/politicians/crony capitalists, etc.).
You can get a pretty good sense of that here:
It's hard to say how deep his ethnic concerns run and in what direction. As you and I know, there are many Jews who care deeply about the Jewish people, rightly so, and who also rightly believe that what is best for the Jews is nearly the exact opposite of what the Zionists have done and are still doing. Just how enlightened Peter may be about such things in private is something we can't know unless God shows us. Even then, we may not be allowed to reveal it. He treads lightly on the issue. He's been down on crony capitalism, but if he becomes a US Senator or whatever, he'll be sucked in whether he likes that or not. It's the nature of the proverbial Beast, as we both know.
Your two comments suggest strongly that pure Austrian School leads to fighting anyway. That's my position. The selfish will fight rather than stand with we who say to them that they are crazy not to agree that unselfishness and sharing is better. They say it's against human nature, so one is better off being one of the dogs and Alpha male sociopaths can be fought off by joining in private "Clubs for Protection." They refuse to concern themselves with the hypocrisy that Jesus showed to them exists within their moneychanger system. It's a shame.
So, I see that you are thinking that Austrian School extremely limited government is better than a big, fascistic mixed economy. The absence of Progressive social legislation though would take us back to how it was with child labor and no welfare safety nets, etc. Either way, it's bleak for many.
Hitler had the Germans eating well again, but he did it via quite a bit of slave labor. It wasn't a good plan. A better way would have been the New Deal minus the war and with tweaks such as high-skills government-funded training while the students were employed in high-skills public employment rather than with private corporations as middle men skimming profits so they could continue eating caviar and drinking Champaign even while 10% of the American population remained unemployed. FDR knew all of this, of course, but was afraid of the laissez-faire capitalist, who did in fact attempt a coup to overthrow him, as we know from Smedley Butler's testimony and evidence.
Why people automatically equate government with evil is on account of ignorance that they could change that by changing their own hearts. They say it is not in human nature to be nice the way they themselves claim they could be if only the first premise weren't so. It's crazy. Selfishness is learned, not innate. If we teach each other unselfishness, that's what we will reap in the end. Wouldn't it, won't it, be beautiful? I'm forward looking.
I think Barack Obama is a drag. I think, no, I know, he has many drags surrounding him — really, nothing but, if you look at it. I know you agree, Thomas.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." Only we believe in God. We don't see God as a cartoon character: old man with a long white beard sitting on a literal golden throne floating in the sky surrounding the Earth. It's not an either/or with that degree of twisted literalism. We hold with the Logos of St. John.
Peace and love, brother,
July 14 at 2:40pm • Like •
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)